← 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
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
46
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
44
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
29
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
28
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
26
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
18
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

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7578/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Sh.Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 254

passed the impugned assessment order dated 12.05.2017 u/s 254 r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act. Thereby, the AO yet again made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.5,66,45,019/-. 5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who sustained the disallowance ... Paper Book. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2006-07 in assessee’s own case had restored the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the assessing authority to decide in accordance with the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5266/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Finvest Ltd. Dcit D3, P3B, District Centre, Vs Circle 21 (1) Saket New Delhi New Delhi-110017 Pan No. Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 14A

computing the disallowance in accordance with rule 8D. The relevant findings of the AO read as under :- 2.3. Detailed working for calculation of disallowance U/s 14A of the Act' and in accordance with Rule 8D of the Income tax rules, 1962 Particulars Rs. 31.03.2010 Rs. Rs. Average 31.03.2011 6417953705 Interest ... equal to Rs.42,86,933/- on account of administrative and other expenses indirectly attributable to any exempt income or receipt. 2.5. Therefore total disallowance U/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962 is Rs.6,86,56,904/- (Rs.6,43,69,970/y

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

ground of appeal of the assessee is remitted to AO on similar directions. 10. Ground Nos.5.1 to 5.3 are with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After hearing both the parties it has been observed that this issue is covered in assessee ... ground No.5, the assessee claims that without prejudice the Learned AO erred in considering the average value of the investment for quantification of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). In this regard it is observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before this

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

ground of appeal of the assessee is remitted to AO on similar directions. 10. Ground Nos.5.1 to 5.3 are with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After hearing both the parties it has been observed that this issue is covered in assessee ... ground No.5, the assessee claims that without prejudice the Learned AO erred in considering the average value of the investment for quantification of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). In this regard it is observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before this

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

ground of appeal of the assessee is remitted to AO on similar directions. 10. Ground Nos.5.1 to 5.3 are with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After hearing both the parties it has been observed that this issue is covered in assessee ... ground No.5, the assessee claims that without prejudice the Learned AO erred in considering the average value of the investment for quantification of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). In this regard it is observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before this

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

ground of appeal of the assessee is remitted to AO on similar directions. 10. Ground Nos.5.1 to 5.3 are with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After hearing both the parties it has been observed that this issue is covered in assessee ... ground No.5, the assessee claims that without prejudice the Learned AO erred in considering the average value of the investment for quantification of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). In this regard it is observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before this

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

ground of appeal of the assessee is remitted to AO on similar directions. 10. Ground Nos.5.1 to 5.3 are with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After hearing both the parties it has been observed that this issue is covered in assessee ... ground No.5, the assessee claims that without prejudice the Learned AO erred in considering the average value of the investment for quantification of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). In this regard it is observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before this

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

ground of appeal of the assessee is remitted to AO on similar directions. 10. Ground Nos.5.1 to 5.3 are with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After hearing both the parties it has been observed that this issue is covered in assessee ... ground No.5, the assessee claims that without prejudice the Learned AO erred in considering the average value of the investment for quantification of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). In this regard it is observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before this

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

ground of appeal of the assessee is remitted to AO on similar directions. 10. Ground Nos.5.1 to 5.3 are with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After hearing both the parties it has been observed that this issue is covered in assessee ... ground No.5, the assessee claims that without prejudice the Learned AO erred in considering the average value of the investment for quantification of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). In this regard it is observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before this

ACIT. Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Eipr India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 14ASection 69C

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in holding that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for in respect of investments which do not earn exempt income which is contrary to CBDT Circular No.5/2014 which clarifies that the Rule ... India Pvt. Ltd., addition on account of foreign travelling expenses and addition on account of informer information expenses. 4. Brief facts relating to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act are, during assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee had invested in various unquoted shares of group companies and further observed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1740/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Majunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 14A

also requires a fresh look by the AO. We therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issue regarding disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with law.” 3. The assessee had earned exempt income ... money, till the time allotment is made, is in the nature of debt and hence, the same cannot be considered for purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the case of Rainy Investments (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2013)(30 taxmann.com 169), Mumbai bench of ITAT had also expressed

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1704/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Majunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 14A

also requires a fresh look by the AO. We therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issue regarding disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with law.” 3. The assessee had earned exempt income ... money, till the time allotment is made, is in the nature of debt and hence, the same cannot be considered for purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the case of Rainy Investments (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2013)(30 taxmann.com 169), Mumbai bench of ITAT had also expressed

Dy CIT -CC-8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Niku Mercantile P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal by the Department stands dismissed

ITA 1040/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Before Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1040/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S Niku Mercantile Private Tax, Central Circle - 8(1) Limited, Vs. Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Dhanraj Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Csm Marg, Colaba, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai - 400001 Pan : Aaacn6871F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri C.T. Mathews, Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee which is contrary to CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 which clarifies that the Rule ... income.? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A in view of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 42 of their decision in the case of M/s Maxopp Investment

ITO -3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S V.K. Lalaco Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Income Tax Officer -3(3)(4) V. M/S. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 672, 6Th Floor 1017/18, Dalamal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 10Th Floor, 211, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400020 Pan: Aaacv9820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish Modi Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)

assets? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee which was computed as per Rule 8D of I.T Rules 1962 on the basis ... made? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee which is contrary to CBDT Circular No.5/2014 which clarifies that the Rule 8D r.w.s

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. Sh. Shantanu Bhowmick, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3473/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 14A

dispose of the appeals ex parte qua the assessee and after hearing the Learned DR. 5. Ground No.1 is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee shown investment of Rs. 1,71,02,350/-. The assessee ... asked to submit the source of investment and also asked to show-cause as to why disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D be not made. Assessee inter alia submitted that he has not incurred any expense to earn the exempt income and further assessee has invested own fund

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. The submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under:- Ground No.4 - Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. “This concerns a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The disallowance is in a sum of Rs.24,67,387/-. The case

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1388/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

expenditure for the purpose of earning the income. 7. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in computing the disallowance u/s 14A by taking the investments from which exempt income is not earned and exempt income cannot be earned (taxable investments).” 3. For assessment year ... Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following additions - (i) Disallowance of share issue expenses of Rs.49,74,049/- (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D of Rs.49,78,941/- 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

expenditure for the purpose of earning the income. 7. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in computing the disallowance u/s 14A by taking the investments from which exempt income is not earned and exempt income cannot be earned (taxable investments).” 3. For assessment year ... Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following additions - (i) Disallowance of share issue expenses of Rs.49,74,049/- (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D of Rs.49,78,941/- 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1370/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

expenditure for the purpose of earning the income. 7. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in computing the disallowance u/s 14A by taking the investments from which exempt income is not earned and exempt income cannot be earned (taxable investments).” 3. For assessment year ... Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following additions - (i) Disallowance of share issue expenses of Rs.49,74,049/- (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D of Rs.49,78,941/- 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Disallowance of other Expenses= One half percent of average value of investments =0.5 % x Rs 103,45,40,304 = Rs 51,72,702 Disallowance u/s 14A = Rs 51,72,702 This amount, Rs 51,72,702 is telescoped into the amount of Rs 15,70,919 already admitted as allocation ... view that the disallowance may be estimated to meet the requirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly, we estimate the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.2.00 lakhs and in our view, the same would meet the requirements of the provisions of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order