← 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

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1763/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

this issue. In the result, ground 1 of the revenue is allowed. 5. Ground No.2, 3 & 6 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment of book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given ... findings with respect to restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income and as such the ground by department is not available to the revenue.He further submitted that in any case, it is settled that any disallowance that is to be made under section 14A

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1762/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

this issue. In the result, ground 1 of the revenue is allowed. 5. Ground No.2, 3 & 6 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment of book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given ... findings with respect to restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income and as such the ground by department is not available to the revenue.He further submitted that in any case, it is settled that any disallowance that is to be made under section 14A

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1678/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

this issue. In the result, ground 1 of the revenue is allowed. 5. Ground No.2, 3 & 6 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment of book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given ... findings with respect to restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income and as such the ground by department is not available to the revenue.He further submitted that in any case, it is settled that any disallowance that is to be made under section 14A

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1677/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

this issue. In the result, ground 1 of the revenue is allowed. 5. Ground No.2, 3 & 6 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment of book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given ... findings with respect to restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income and as such the ground by department is not available to the revenue.He further submitted that in any case, it is settled that any disallowance that is to be made under section 14A

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

this issue. In the result, ground 1 of the revenue is allowed. 5. Ground No.2, 3 & 6 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment of book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given ... findings with respect to restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income and as such the ground by department is not available to the revenue.He further submitted that in any case, it is settled that any disallowance that is to be made under section 14A

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1675/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 40

this issue. In the result, ground 1 of the revenue is allowed. 5. Ground No.2, 3 & 6 of the appeal relate to disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment of book profit under section 115JB(2) of the Act. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given ... findings with respect to restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income and as such the ground by department is not available to the revenue.He further submitted that in any case, it is settled that any disallowance that is to be made under section 14A

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Bona Sera Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 863/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

erred in restricting the disallowance u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income earned ignoring the fact that the AO has computed disallowance u/s 14A as per rule 8D? 04. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in restricting

JCIT (OSD) -3(4), Mumbai vs. Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 612/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT was right in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 85,000/- instead of Rs. 1,05,68,831/- ignoring the fact that the amount of disallowance was worked ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the I. T. Act r.w. Rule 8D of the 1. T. Rules while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act and without

Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT was right in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 85,000/- instead of Rs. 1,05,68,831/- ignoring the fact that the amount of disallowance was worked ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the I. T. Act r.w. Rule 8D of the 1. T. Rules while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act and without

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Fashions Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 758/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 757 & 758/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 111Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

dated 28-02-2025 Relevant Para is reproduced: 6. Ground No. 2 deleting the addition of Rs. 10,84,214/ on account of disallowance u/s 14A rw.r BD of the Act. The findings of the Ld CIT(A) that there is no dividend income earned by the assessee thereby deleted ... High Court, Gujarat in the cases of the appellant as mentioned above, the Ld AO is directed to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 10,84,214/- if the claim of the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under consideration is found to be correct

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Fashions Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 757/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 757 & 758/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 111Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

dated 28-02-2025 Relevant Para is reproduced: 6. Ground No. 2 deleting the addition of Rs. 10,84,214/ on account of disallowance u/s 14A rw.r BD of the Act. The findings of the Ld CIT(A) that there is no dividend income earned by the assessee thereby deleted ... High Court, Gujarat in the cases of the appellant as mentioned above, the Ld AO is directed to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 10,84,214/- if the claim of the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under consideration is found to be correct

Conwood Construction and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

ITA 4756/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 270(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowances on account of (i) provision made for diminution of investment, (ii) disallowances of donation, (iii) disallowances of provision for gratuity and (iv) disallowances u/s 14A of the Act. The assessment came to be completed with total disallowance or addition of Rs. 1,01,99,488/-. Further the book profit ... penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated on the assessee qua the first three issues of disallowances except disallowance u/s 14A. During the penalty proceedings, it is observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee company had requested the assessing officer to make disallowances in respect

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2.1.1, Vejalpur vs. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1268/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

Income Tax Rules ('Rules) as expenditure incurred to earn exempt income 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had sufficient own funds. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming ... justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,88,83,82,604/- made u/s 80IA (4)(i) without appreciating the facts of the case.” Disallowance u/s 14A – AY 2017-18:- Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal 6. The brief facts

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vejalpur vs. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kachchh

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1261/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

Income Tax Rules ('Rules) as expenditure incurred to earn exempt income 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had sufficient own funds. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming ... justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,88,83,82,604/- made u/s 80IA (4)(i) without appreciating the facts of the case.” Disallowance u/s 14A – AY 2017-18:- Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal 6. The brief facts

Mundra International Container Terminal Private Limited, Mundra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1241/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

Income Tax Rules ('Rules) as expenditure incurred to earn exempt income 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had sufficient own funds. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming ... justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,88,83,82,604/- made u/s 80IA (4)(i) without appreciating the facts of the case.” Disallowance u/s 14A – AY 2017-18:- Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal Ground No. 2 of Revenue’s appeal 6. The brief facts

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shrem Roadways Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 4049/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit-Cc-5(4) Vs. Shrem Roadways R. No. 436, Private Limited, 4Thfloor,Kautilya Bhavan, 1101, Viraj Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, W.E. Highway, Bandra (East), Mumbai- Andheri Kurla Road, 400 051 Andheri (East)M Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaycs1239C (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 14ASection 250Section 253Section 37(1)

Whether, On the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 14A by holding that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income by ignoring the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 which is clarificatory in nature?" 6. "Whether, On the facts and circumstances

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Pradeep Phulchand Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 4181/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

appeal of revenue for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 4181/MUM/2025 are rendered as dismissed. 4.6 Ground no 2. Disallowance u/s 14A Apropos, issue of disallowance u/s 14A, it is submitted by the Ld. CIT DR that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income ... addition of Rs.12,09,032/- done by the AO is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 5.15 On the issue of disallowance u/s 14A, Ld. CITDR reiterated the facts from assessment order and submitted that the Ld AO had rightly made the disallowance. Whereas

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pradeep Phulchand Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 4136/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

appeal of revenue for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 4181/MUM/2025 are rendered as dismissed. 4.6 Ground no 2. Disallowance u/s 14A Apropos, issue of disallowance u/s 14A, it is submitted by the Ld. CIT DR that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income ... addition of Rs.12,09,032/- done by the AO is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 5.15 On the issue of disallowance u/s 14A, Ld. CITDR reiterated the facts from assessment order and submitted that the Ld AO had rightly made the disallowance. Whereas

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(3), Mumbai vs. Pradeep Phulchand Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 3852/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

appeal of revenue for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 4181/MUM/2025 are rendered as dismissed. 4.6 Ground no 2. Disallowance u/s 14A Apropos, issue of disallowance u/s 14A, it is submitted by the Ld. CIT DR that Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income ... purchase of investment and assessee own funds are more than investment and as no expenses has been claimed while computing income no disallowance u/s. 14A called for. Ld. AO made disallowance U.s 14A r.w.r. 8D following the judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce

Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2169/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Kshitij Kasi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 14A

quashed. 2. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2.2 Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Rule 8D cannot be invoked without recording objective satisfaction ... case and in law without prejudice to above, Ld. AO failed to reduce Securities Transaction Tax expenses of Rs.13,01,397 while computing disallowance u/s 14A rwr 8D which has been added back suo-moto by Appellant in COI. 4. On facts and in circumstances of the case