“disallowance u/s 14A”

ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified herei...

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Circle – 20(1) Ho-Accounts & Audit New Delhi Department, 1St Floor, 21-Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan : Aaacp 1206 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

order of CIT(A) and thus the Grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 18. Ground No.3 & 5 are interconnected and with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 19. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had earned exempt income amounting to Rs.6 ... applicable to the assessee. AO therefore asked the assessee to explain as to why expenses attributable to exempt income may not be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. On the query of the AO, assessee made the detailed submissions which are reproduced by the AO in the order. However

DCIT, Circle- 4(1), Gurgaon vs. Uniquest Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Uniquest Infra Circle – 4(1), Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon 3Rd Floor, Tower – B, Cyber Greens, Sec-25A, Dlf City, Phase – Iii, Gurgaon Pan : Aabuc 2595 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

investments, no interest expenditure has been incurred by the company for earning of exempt income and therefore as per the settled law, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO thereafter by applying the provision of Rule ... r.w.s 14A of the Act worked out the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.1,56,40,968/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO. While deleting the addition, CIT(A) noted that

Zuari Investements Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Zuari Investments Ltd., Vs. Ito Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Ward – 27(4), Community Centre, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi-110 048

should be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the working wherein the assesse has voluntarily disallowed u/s 14A sum of Rs.4,99,833/- and has given the basis of working. The AO has simply rejected without giving any reasons for not being satisfied with the working ... Rule 8D. Further, the appellant has not claimed any interest expenditure as noted by the AO himself in the assessment order. Hence, the disallowance u/s 14A should be restricted to Rs.4,99,833/- only. 5. Without prejudice, the appellant contends that the working made as per Rule 8D is wrong

ACIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi vs. Lemon Tree Hotel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri P.K.Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd., Circle-15(1), B-6/17, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110029. Pan-Aacck1698R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Princy Singhla, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Mukal Baga, Adv. & Shri Vikas Singh, Ca Date Of Hearing 29.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2016. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) of Rs.1.96,51,975/-. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) further made disallowances of Employees Stock Option Cost ... appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, the disallowance made by the AO regarding disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and also addition to the book profit of Rs.1,96,51,975/- was held to be not warranted. The Ld.CIT

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

erred in deleting the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in book profit u/s 115JB on account of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D(i) & (ii) amounting to Rs. 2,56,71,000/-. 4. The appellant craves, leave, modify, add or forego in any ground(s) of appeal ... consideration. For the sake of clarity the reply filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under : “In regard to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, we may submit that In the return of Income, our company has already made disallowance of Rs.4 lacs, which represents

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

erred in deleting the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in book profit u/s 115JB on account of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D(i) & (ii) amounting to Rs. 2,56,71,000/-. 4. The appellant craves, leave, modify, add or forego in any ground(s) of appeal ... consideration. For the sake of clarity the reply filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under : “In regard to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, we may submit that In the return of Income, our company has already made disallowance of Rs.4 lacs, which represents

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

23/Del/2008 the disallowance works out to Rs.12.14 lacs only. 1.3. That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in determining the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 1,04,16,000/- instead of Rs.78,43,000/- as relevant to the year under consideration which was correctly proposed ... thereafter framed by the AO vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2006 after making the following additions/disallowances: Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 30,97,000/- Disallowance of technical know how Rs. 62,05,360/- fee Disallowance of Intt. On corporate Rs. 35,76,000/- deposit Page

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

23/Del/2008 the disallowance works out to Rs.12.14 lacs only. 1.3. That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in determining the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 1,04,16,000/- instead of Rs.78,43,000/- as relevant to the year under consideration which was correctly proposed ... thereafter framed by the AO vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2006 after making the following additions/disallowances: Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 30,97,000/- Disallowance of technical know how Rs. 62,05,360/- fee Disallowance of Intt. On corporate Rs. 35,76,000/- deposit Page

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

facts in allowing relief to exclude such investments which did not yield any income for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A by overlooking the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D(2) of IT Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 8D(2) is reproduced below: "The average ... this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs.50,75,526/- and sustained the rest of the additions. 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

facts in allowing relief to exclude such investments which did not yield any income for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A by overlooking the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D(2) of IT Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 8D(2) is reproduced below: "The average ... this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs.50,75,526/- and sustained the rest of the additions. 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017

M/S. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

facts in allowing relief to exclude such investments which did not yield any income for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A by overlooking the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D(2) of IT Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 8D(2) is reproduced below: "The average ... this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs.50,75,526/- and sustained the rest of the additions. 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017

M/S. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

facts in allowing relief to exclude such investments which did not yield any income for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A by overlooking the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D(2) of IT Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 8D(2) is reproduced below: "The average ... this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs.50,75,526/- and sustained the rest of the additions. 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017