“disallowance u/s 14A”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A2,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance u/s 14A is CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. (223 Taxmann 130), cited in 579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance u/s 14A

CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.

223 Taxmann 130 · 2014 · High Court

579

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.

330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court

207

citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

145 Taxmann.com 641 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, particularly Rule 8D(iii) for administrative expenses, should only consider investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Section 14A empowers the Assessing Officer to determine expenditure related to income not forming part of total income.

Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT

125 Taxmann.com 72 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A is a notional disallowance and cannot be added back while computing Book Profits under section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax purposes.

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO

181 TTJ 600 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Even if interest expenditure is considered, it cannot be solely attributed to earning exempt dividend income as investors also consider potential capital gains.

PCIT v. J.J. Glastronics (P.) Ltd.

139 Taxmann.com 375 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Additions made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot be considered for computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported

citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

PCIT v. Dipesh Lalchand Shah

143 Taxmann.com 419 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. This applies even if the assessee has made investments in shares or has income from a partnership that is negative.

Judgments citing disallowance u/s 14A

ITO 28 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Hari Bachubhai Mujat, Mumbai

ITA 6855/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 28

6865/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 “1. Because, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 12,11,828/-. 2. Because, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO‟s action

Mr. Manoharlal Tandon, Mumbai vs. ACIT_9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5334/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Manoharlal Tandon Vs. Acit – 9(1)(1) Plot No.35 (Pr), C-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Tandon Beach House, M.K.Road, Azad Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 Pan/Gir No. : Aaapt2929F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K Shivram.Ar Respondent By : Mr.T. Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Thane Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivram.ARFor Respondent: Mr.T. Shankar.DR

Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 94(7)

made a disallowance of loss on account of sale of mutual funds u/s 94(7) of the Act. Whereas, in respect of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act the A.O. found that the assessee has investment ... Therefore, the submission of the assessee is not acceptable. 3. The A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and worked out the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(i),(ii)&(iii) of Rs. 3,72,08,900/- and assessed the Mr. Manoharlal Tandon., Mumbai. total income of Rs. Nil after

Dsp Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4624/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Gogaldsp Investment Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) 11Th Floor, Mafatlal Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb1574H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mr.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Shankar.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

business income. Similarly the A.O found that the assessee has received the dividend on shares and mutual funds and has computed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D(2) of I T Rules of Rs. 2,02,86,828/-.The A.O found that the assessee has moved

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

business income. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A without considering the circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce ... Developers Pvt Ltd. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A ignoring the fact that investments in group companies will also yield exempt income which will attract disallowance u/s

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR

Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

order considering the transfer pricing adjustment, the DRP directions, M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai. reallocation of expenses and CBDT Circular and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and determined the total income under the normal provisions of Income Tax of RS. 475,92,23,316/- and the book profits ... reallocating 50% of administrative and selling & marketing expense of the non eligible unit. 9. On the disputed issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2) of the IT Rules. the Ld. AR has made elaborate submissions that no exempt income is earned and hence no disallowance is warranted and relied

Accc 30, Mumbai vs. United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

ITA 3036/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

exceed actual combined profit earned by the AE and appellant together of Rs. 5,98,31,781/-. B. Relating to disallowances u/s. 14A: 6. The Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred, in facts and in law, in upholding disallowance of Rs. 9,65, 162/ u/s. 14A of the Act, without regard ... years 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A on reasonable basis by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT wherein

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

Tata Motors Finance Solutions Pvt. Ltd and he observed that the above investment in equity shares were capable of yielding exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A was made by the Assessing Officer while computing the total income of the assessee company. Accordingly, he issued notice u/s ... various items whose information is required to be given to the share holders under clause 3(xii)(b). 9.3 As regards disallowance u/s 14A, the controversy as to whether disallowance can be made by invoking section 14A in cases where no exempt income was earned by an assessee during

Dy CIT. CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. D.B. Realty Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja RenderFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

u/s. 14A on the ground that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year‟ without appreciating that the disallowance u/s. 14A was required to be made irrespective of whether the assessee had earned exempt income during the year or not”. 2. “On the facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A for A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y.2017-18 without appreciating the fact that circular no. 5 of 2014 dated 11th February, 2014, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes clearly provides for disallowance of the expenditure even

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Gauri Avinash Bhosale, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 122/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

Income Tax Act, 1961 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A for A.Y. 2012-13 without appreciating the fact that circular no. 5 of 2014 dated 11th February, 2014, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wall Street Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2175/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 250Section 50Section 54E

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ClT(A) has erred in restricting th disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D from Rs.4,60,344/- made by the AO to Rs.66,110/-. 3. The appellant prays that the order of 01(A) or the above ground

Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 1 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 7639/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 40

Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. A.Y. 2008-09 2. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,24,95,632/- or that the disallowance be appropriately reduced. GROUND NO.II: DISALLOWANCE OF EDUCATION CESS ... additional ground u/s 148 of the Act to consider the Education Cess etc. The AO passed the order dated 16.05.2016 assessing the disallowance u/s 14A to the tune of Rs.83,85,78,993/-. The total income was assessed to the tune of Rs.115,80,55,501/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee

Suman P Khurana, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

ITA 2415/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

After allowing the deduction @ 30%, the income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.62,62,411/-. After some disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.(-)1,26,05,175/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4417/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra (CIT-DR) &

Section 14ASection 35ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 4O

Know-how and/or Technical Assistance and hence is of a revenue nature fully allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. Ground No.2 Disallowance U/s 14A 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance