← All Phrases

“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

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

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

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

ITA 2680/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2003-04

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

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

ITA 2679/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

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

Lml Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 2654/MUM/2013[2003-4]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022

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

Lml Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 2653/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

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

Lml Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 1894/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

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

Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7742/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

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

M/S. Nsl Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 262/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.262/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nsl Sugars Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 60/1, 2Nd Cross V. Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Residency Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aagcs0938Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Am : This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Dcit Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 30.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. Brief Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Sugar & Molasses Etc. It Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-2017 On 30.11.2016 With Returned Loss Of Rs.78,24,50,827. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. Reference Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) For Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Specified Domestic Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee. The Tpo Passed An Order U/S 92Ca On 30.10.2019 Proposing The Adjustment Of Rs.96,57,60,845. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed A Draft Assessment Order On 23.12.2019 Incorporating The Tp Adjustment Proposed By The Tpo. In Addition, The Ao

For Appellant: Sri.T.Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised several grounds contending the below two disallowances made by the AO:- (i) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D – Rs.1,91,49,505 (ii) Disallowance on account of deduction claimed u/s 43B - Rs.5,66,93,000 4. During the year under consideration ... investments in shares and has incurred considerable amount towards legal, professional fees and consultancy fees for managing the shares and portfolio warranting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The AO passed the final order based on DRP directions. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1017/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(3) V. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale Room No. 803, 8Th Floor 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road Pratishtha Bhavan Range Hill Corner Old Cgo Annexe Pune City, Pune -4111007 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abtpb8151F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69A

raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to exempt income earned without appreciating the fact that circular no. 5 of 2014 dated 11' February, 2014, issued by the Central Board ... Karnataka High Court] d. CIT v. Raj Kumar Arora [52 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad)] 5. Ld. AR of the assessee with regard to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act submitted that, Assessing Officer has disallowed ₹.40,05,040/- u/s.14A of the Act (Pg no 3 of the order). The said disallowance

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

support of above contention. 3. Without prejudice to above contention, the Ld CIT(A) failed to note that disallowance u/s 14A is a legal and debatable issue as the matter was decided by various High Courts and accordingly is not a matter of rectification u/s 154. 4. Without prejudice ... above, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A without appreciating that appellant being trader is securities has incurred expenses for buying and selling securities and not for earning of tax free income and accordingly, no disallowance is warranted.” Revenue’s Appeal: “Whether on the facts

Asst CIT 10 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8048/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. ChandramouliFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh

amount of ₹.8,22,428/- being expenditure incurred in relation to earning exempt income and not forming part of the total income. Accordingly, disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act. 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions which is reproduced below: - “3. Disallowance u/s ... explanation during the assessment proceedings and submitted the statement clarifying that why the above interest should not be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A. How the AO arbitrarily taken into account for The purpose of computation of 14A the interest amounting to Rs.3,40,07,000/- and disallowed

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

judgements cited supra, we are of the opinion that no addition to book profits u/s 115JB could be made on the basis of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon;ble Bombay High Court

Pranava Electronics P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

that it should be allowed as business loss becomes academic. 12. The next issue for consideration is with regard to disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.R.8D made by the AO. The CIT(Appeals) observed that there is no dispute that dividend income of Rs.76,40,574 was earned by assessee ... total interest expenses and administrative and office expenses of Rs.13,05,781 being 88% of the total expenses of Rs.14,83,842) as disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D. The CIT(Appeals) further observed there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant company is engaged in investment

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-2013 (supra), wherein the Tribunal has given the following directions:-  Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not attracted when the own funds are in excess of the value of the investments.  Disallowance u/s 14A ... cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee.  Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be made on investments where no dividend income has been earned. 10.5 The learned Departmental Representative supported the findings of the A.O. and the DRP. 10.6 We have heard rival submissions and perused

Hemant Kumar Ruia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 973/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Proceeding To Make Disallowance Under Rule 8D2((Ii) & (Iii)Of I.T. Rules, 1962. 1.2 In So Doing The Ld Cit (A'S) Did Not Follow The Principle Laid Down By The Apex Court In The Case Of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2018) 91 Taxman.Com 154 (Sc) Of Apportionment Of Expenditure Between Income Liable To Tax & Income Which Is Exempt. 1.3 The Ld. Cit (A'S) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of Ao That Interest On Public Provident Fund Was Liable To Be Considered For The Purpose Of Computing Disallowance U/S 14Aof The Act. 1.4 In Any Event Of The Matter The Ld. Cit (A'S) Ought To Have Restricted The Disallowance To The Extent Of Rs. 62,977/- Being Dividend Received On Shares Held As Stock In Trade.

grounds of appeal read as under : 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the lone ground of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the decision of AO did not appreciate that no disallowance

Kotak Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT Rnage 4(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

right in deciding that amount of investments, which have earned exempted income during the year only should be considered for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(iii) of the income Tax Act, 1961”. 2. “The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which ... necessary.” “ITA.No. 6023/Mum/2019 (Assessee Appeal) Ground NO.1 – Enhancement of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T.Rules by including the shares held as stock in trade. 3 ITA.NOs. 6023, 6024, 6256 & 6257/MUM/2019 M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd., 1. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai

Kotak Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT-Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6023/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

right in deciding that amount of investments, which have earned exempted income during the year only should be considered for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(iii) of the income Tax Act, 1961”. 2. “The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which ... necessary.” “ITA.No. 6023/Mum/2019 (Assessee Appeal) Ground NO.1 – Enhancement of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T.Rules by including the shares held as stock in trade. 3 ITA.NOs. 6023, 6024, 6256 & 6257/MUM/2019 M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd., 1. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai

Gujarat Pipavav Ports Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3361/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640 wherein it had been held that disallowance u/s 14A of he Act cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income and there cannot be any quarrel on this issue. Hence, we do not find any infirmity

Hathway Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7105/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

assessee at Rs. 28,96,745/-. 11. We are of considered view that if by virtue of law expounded by Courts the disallowance u/s 14A is reduced below suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee, there would not be any impediment in assessee getting the benefit. 12. Similar issue ... under: ITA. No. 7105/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 “The last grievance under these appeal is of the assessee as to whether the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below disallowance suo motu voluntarily made by the assessee in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has claimed that

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

3695/MUM/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. Arti Industries Ltd., 5. At the outset, with regard to Ground No. 1 which is in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the issue ... assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in upholding the action of AO in making addition of disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 68,06,776/- while computing tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee had earned dividend income

M/S Kemwell Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Harish V.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(11)Section 32Section 50

Income- tax Act (the Act) was duly served on the assessee. During the course of hearing, the AO made a disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D for Rs.2,66,123/- and brought to tax a sum of Rs.93,80,891/- as short term capital gain u/s ... instituted an appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee whereby he deleted the disallowance u/s 14A and confirmed the short term capital gain as computed by the AO. Page 3 of 10 6. Aggrieved by the order