← 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3259/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 132

been accepted. Accordingly, he deleted the addition of Rs. 1,58,08,552 made by the assessing officer. 12. With respect to the disallowance u/s 14A of the income tax act made by the learned assessing officer of ₹ 23,419/–, the CIT – A observed that the assessee has earned

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3258/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 132

been accepted. Accordingly, he deleted the addition of Rs. 1,58,08,552 made by the assessing officer. 12. With respect to the disallowance u/s 14A of the income tax act made by the learned assessing officer of ₹ 23,419/–, the CIT – A observed that the assessee has earned

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3257/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 132

been accepted. Accordingly, he deleted the addition of Rs. 1,58,08,552 made by the assessing officer. 12. With respect to the disallowance u/s 14A of the income tax act made by the learned assessing officer of ₹ 23,419/–, the CIT – A observed that the assessee has earned

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rrpr Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 192/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singh[A.Y 2009-10]

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT- DR
Section 14A

expenditure on proportionate basis towards shares that have been sold off and shares that have been retained by the appellant, while computing the disallowance u/s 14A where as there is no such provision under rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.” 3. The cross objections of the assessee read ... year under consideration, the Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that all the expenses incurred by the assessee has to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules as the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 37,93,374/- and there is direct nexus

DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Icra Ltd Circle – 12(1) 1105, Kailash Building New Delhi 11Th Floor, 26 Kasturba Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan No. Aaaci 0218 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. On The Date Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed On Its Behalf, Though The Notice For Hearing Was Issued To The Assessee. The Case File Further Reveals That There Was No Appearance In The Past From The 2 Assessee’S Side. In Such A Situation, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex Parte Qua The Assessee After Considering The Material On Record & After Hearing By The Learned Dr.

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded satisfaction before involving Rule 8D of the Rule ... detail in his order. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) is correct in holding that disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act should be restricted to only those investments from which the assessee erred exempt income during the year. 5. The appellant

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Times Internet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3124/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3124/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Times Internet Ltd., Special Range-9, 10, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1559M

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 35D

thus there is no justification of a different# inference for the remaining Rs 5,50,000/-.” ITA No. 3124/Del/2018 A.Y. 2014-15: (Revenue) Disallowance u/s 14A: 4. During the year, the assessee earned dividend from mutual fund of Rs.1,03,60,745/- and suo moto disallowed an amount of Rs.5 ... provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) computed disallowance to Rs.96,28,052/-. 5. The ld. CIT (A) directed the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s 14A by considering the investments from which dividend has been earned by the appellant company and relying on the order of the Special Bench

Times Internet Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2210/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3124/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Times Internet Ltd., Special Range-9, 10, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1559M

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 35D

thus there is no justification of a different# inference for the remaining Rs 5,50,000/-.” ITA No. 3124/Del/2018 A.Y. 2014-15: (Revenue) Disallowance u/s 14A: 4. During the year, the assessee earned dividend from mutual fund of Rs.1,03,60,745/- and suo moto disallowed an amount of Rs.5 ... provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) computed disallowance to Rs.96,28,052/-. 5. The ld. CIT (A) directed the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s 14A by considering the investments from which dividend has been earned by the appellant company and relying on the order of the Special Bench

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6432/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6432/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs Religare Enterprises Ltd., Circle-21(1), D-3, P-3B, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv5888N Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: None
Section 14ASection 37(1)

appellant also submitted a detailed breakup of the interest costs incurred by it in the instant AY and suo-moto disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D as under: S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Amount Amount Amount not considered while disallowed considered while computing under section computing the disallowance ... appellant and duly offered to tax a business income in its return of income expense of Rs.6,92,18,710/- was not disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. (ii) Purchase of 150 12.5% convertible debenture of Religare Finvest Limited (“RFL”) in the secondary market on December 7, 2012 aggregating

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Innus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the learnt AO

ITA 7331/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit(E), Vs. Innus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Circle-1(1), M-62 & 63, First Floor, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacci1776N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajhesh Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Najmi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee filed its return of income on 24.09.2014 declaring income of Rs. 640/-. The ld AO questioned the assessee as to why disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made. The assessee submitted a reply which was considered and rejected. The assessee submitted that ... section 14A are not applicable. The AO rejected the same relying on the Circular No. 5 of 2014. Therefore, he computed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as per para No. 4 wherein indirect expenditure of interest of Rs. 4,21,13,314/- was computed under Rule

Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 1044/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

Income-tax Act, 1961 to the extent of Rs. 51,23,311/-. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals), while determining the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has failed to appreciate that: - (i) entire amount of interest paid by the assesse company in an amount ... erred in-reducing the addition of Rs.9,56,00,000/- to -Rs.51,23,311/- made 'by AO under normal .provisions on account of disallowance u/s 14A. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of -the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of Rs.9

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 1036/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

Income-tax Act, 1961 to the extent of Rs. 51,23,311/-. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals), while determining the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has failed to appreciate that: - (i) entire amount of interest paid by the assesse company in an amount ... erred in-reducing the addition of Rs.9,56,00,000/- to -Rs.51,23,311/- made 'by AO under normal .provisions on account of disallowance u/s 14A. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of -the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of Rs.9

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 4166/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

Income-tax Act, 1961 to the extent of Rs. 51,23,311/-. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals), while determining the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has failed to appreciate that: - (i) entire amount of interest paid by the assesse company in an amount ... erred in-reducing the addition of Rs.9,56,00,000/- to -Rs.51,23,311/- made 'by AO under normal .provisions on account of disallowance u/s 14A. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of -the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of Rs.9

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer for that year is dismissed

ITA 4124/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Dcit, Industries Ltd. [Formerly Known Vs. As Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Circle – 1, Ltu, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Circle – 1, Ltu, Vs. & Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15 – Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Vs. Acit (Ltu), (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, New Delhi (Now Known As Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd), Hansalya, 11Th & 12Th Floors, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd2281K

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143Section 254

Income-tax Act, 1961 to the extent of Rs. 51,23,311/-. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals), while determining the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has failed to appreciate that: - (i) entire amount of interest paid by the assesse company in an amount ... erred in-reducing the addition of Rs.9,56,00,000/- to -Rs.51,23,311/- made 'by AO under normal .provisions on account of disallowance u/s 14A. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of -the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of Rs.9

Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, • The appeal of the revenue A

ITA 9395/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4553/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., Circle-3(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110049 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0960D With Co No. 223/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., Vs Acit, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, Circle-3(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0960D

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 35ASection 80G

rebutted by any cogent material by the revenue before us, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A). Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.1,04,34,368 : 9. During the year, as per the records, the assessee has not earned any dividend income. However, the Assessing ... view of the above adjudication, the CO of the assessee is treated as superfluous and hence dismissed. ITA No. 9395/Del/2017 A.Y. 2014-15: Disallowance u/s 14A: 14. The assessee received dividend of Rs.2,69,77,700/- which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Income

Haryana Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4072/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

That without prejudice to ground no.2(1), above, the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in making/confirming the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Act in excess of the exempted income of dividend & tax free income which is only of Rs.1

Haryana Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4071/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

That without prejudice to ground no.2(1), above, the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in making/confirming the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Act in excess of the exempted income of dividend & tax free income which is only of Rs.1

Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4070/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

That without prejudice to ground no.2(1), above, the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in making/confirming the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Act in excess of the exempted income of dividend & tax free income which is only of Rs.1

Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4069/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

That without prejudice to ground no.2(1), above, the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in making/confirming the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Act in excess of the exempted income of dividend & tax free income which is only of Rs.1

ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi vs. Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, • The appeal of the revenue A

ITA 4553/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4553/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., Circle-3(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110049 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0960D With Co No. 223/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., Vs Acit, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, Circle-3(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0960D

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 35ASection 80G

rebutted by any cogent material by the revenue before us, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A). Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.1,04,34,368 : 9. During the year, as per the records, the assessee has not earned any dividend income. However, the Assessing ... view of the above adjudication, the CO of the assessee is treated as superfluous and hence dismissed. ITA No. 9395/Del/2017 A.Y. 2014-15: Disallowance u/s 14A: 14. The assessee received dividend of Rs.2,69,77,700/- which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Income

Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4270/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Unitech Holdings Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Luthra & Luthra Law Cricle-27(1), Ofices, 103, Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacu0237C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.H.K.Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2021

Section 14ASection 250(6)

subsidiary/joint venture/associate companies. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income i.e. Rs.289,315/-. Assessment Year : 2012-13 4. The above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice