← 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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3863/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

dismissed. 10. The next common ground in the captioned appeals by the revenue relates to the deletion of the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 11. At the very outset, we find that in AY 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, there is no exempt income

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

language of Sec.14A. 15.4 In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the appellant's method of computing disallowance u/s 14A at 2% and the same is directed to be restored. This ground, therefore, succeeds." 40. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the impugned

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

dated 06/06/2023 passed in the case of State Bank of India for A.Y. 2010-11, ITA No. 3645/Mum/2016 for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s. 14A has: • directed the Assessing Officer to exclude investments stock-in-trade; and • directed the Assessing Officer to consider only those investments which have yielded ... language of Sec.14A. 15.4 In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the appellant’s method of computing disallowance u/s 14A at 2% and the same is directed to be restored. This ground, therefore, succeeds.” 40. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the impugned

Rana Sugars Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 513/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1048/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1049/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Rana Sugars Limited Chandigarh Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.512/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.513/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Rana Sugars Limited Dcit-Central Circle-1 Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C Chandigarh बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) and Ms. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR & Dr. Ranjit
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

issues that fall for our consideration are – (i) Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs.540.98 Lacs; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs; (iii) Disallowance of royalty payment for Rs.25.60 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee ... this plea of Ld. CIT-DR do not find our concurrence. 2.5 The corresponding grounds of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs 3.1 Since the assessee made investment in mutual funds which would yield exempt income, Ld. AO proceeded to make disallowance u/s 14A

Rana Sugars Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 512/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1048/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1049/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Rana Sugars Limited Chandigarh Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.512/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.513/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Rana Sugars Limited Dcit-Central Circle-1 Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C Chandigarh बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) and Ms. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR & Dr. Ranjit
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

issues that fall for our consideration are – (i) Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs.540.98 Lacs; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs; (iii) Disallowance of royalty payment for Rs.25.60 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee ... this plea of Ld. CIT-DR do not find our concurrence. 2.5 The corresponding grounds of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs 3.1 Since the assessee made investment in mutual funds which would yield exempt income, Ld. AO proceeded to make disallowance u/s 14A

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Sugars Ltd, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1048/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1049/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Rana Sugars Limited Chandigarh Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.512/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.513/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Rana Sugars Limited Dcit-Central Circle-1 Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C Chandigarh बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) and Ms. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR & Dr. Ranjit
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

issues that fall for our consideration are – (i) Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs.540.98 Lacs; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs; (iii) Disallowance of royalty payment for Rs.25.60 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee ... this plea of Ld. CIT-DR do not find our concurrence. 2.5 The corresponding grounds of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs 3.1 Since the assessee made investment in mutual funds which would yield exempt income, Ld. AO proceeded to make disallowance u/s 14A

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Sugars Ltd, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1048/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1048/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1049/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Rana Sugars Limited Chandigarh Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.512/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.513/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Rana Sugars Limited Dcit-Central Circle-1 Sco No.49-50, Sector 8-C Chandigarh बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6744-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars. ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) and Ms. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR & Dr. Ranjit
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

issues that fall for our consideration are – (i) Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs.540.98 Lacs; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs; (iii) Disallowance of royalty payment for Rs.25.60 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee ... this plea of Ld. CIT-DR do not find our concurrence. 2.5 The corresponding grounds of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.7.58 Lacs 3.1 Since the assessee made investment in mutual funds which would yield exempt income, Ld. AO proceeded to make disallowance u/s 14A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

noted that the assessee had made an investment of Rs.80 cr. in shares and partnership firms but had not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee incurred loss on investments to the tune of Rs.4,25,765/- earned dividend income of Rs.1,20,120/- and LTCG

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Prateek Apparels Private Limited, Karnataka

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3099/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

assessment was completed by making the addition on account of (i) Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs.64,29,336/-, (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D amounting to Rs.5,61,439/- and (iii) Disallowance of CWIP written off amounting to Rs.1,21,65,389/-. The total income was assessed ... noted that the assessee made investment in quoted/unquoted shares and in joint venture but had not made any disallowance u/s 14A. The AO further noted that investment decisions are complex in nature and require constant monitoring and hence it is imperative that certain expenses would have been incurred in arriving

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(3), Mumbai vs. Prateek Apparels Private Limited, Karnataka

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2936/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

assessment was completed by making the addition on account of (i) Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs.64,29,336/-, (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D amounting to Rs.5,61,439/- and (iii) Disallowance of CWIP written off amounting to Rs.1,21,65,389/-. The total income was assessed ... noted that the assessee made investment in quoted/unquoted shares and in joint venture but had not made any disallowance u/s 14A. The AO further noted that investment decisions are complex in nature and require constant monitoring and hence it is imperative that certain expenses would have been incurred in arriving

DCIT Central Circle (1), Mumbai vs. Krishnaprabhu Infratrans Private Limited, Lucknow

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1856/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankardcit, Central Circle (1) Vs. Krishnaprabhu Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Infratrans Pvt Ltd., Mumbai – 400051. B-9, Vibhuti Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow, Up – 226010. Pan/Gir No. Aahck8608E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 250

also relying 3 & CO. No. 87/Mum/2025 upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Chem Investment Ltd Vs.ITO, 314 ITR 86, made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act. 5. However, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, the operative portion of its order is at para

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 1375/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Blue Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd Ce-9010,9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Room No.568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aadcb6475E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 14ASection 250

retrospective? 6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CITA) has justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby overlooking the computational procedure laid down in Rule BD of the IT Rules, 1962 which has to be necessarily ... appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which is binding on the assessing officer wherein it has been clarified that the disallowance u/s 14A is to be made even if no exempted income had been earned by the assessee during the year? 8. The appellant prays that the order

ACIT 2(2)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. National Peroxide Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 2816/Mum/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 2816/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit 2(2)(1) Mumbai Vs National Peroxide Limited 4Th Floor, Naville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcn7072K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43B

referred the financial figures of FY 2017-18. Here the AO made error in considering the financial figures of FY2016-17 thereby computing disallowance u/s 14A. It is noteworthy that the appellant has Suo moto made 12 ITA 2816/Mum /2023 National Peroxide Ltd disallowance u/s 14A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Delhi vs. Unison Hotels Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4471/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Unison Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Cirlce-25(1), Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Delhi Vasant Kunj, Phase-2Nd, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacu0455C Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr.Adv., Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Akash Shukla, Adv. Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10712/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is Running Hotels. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 29.11.2014, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,21,35,196/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act On 01.09.2015. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time & Submissions Were Taken From The Assessee & Finally, The Assessment Was Completed At An Income Of Inr 30,38,83,394/- By Making Various Additions/Disallowances.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)

case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,99,64,269/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, append or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Ground No.1 raised ... supra) and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd.(supra) wherein it is held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot be exceed the amount of exempt income. The observations made by Ld. CIT(A) while restricting the addition

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

made following disallowances:- (i) Disallowance under Normal Provisions:- Depreciation on Goodwill -Rs.15,10,81,300/- Addition u/s 145A Rs. 2,10,26,875/- Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Rs. 1,12,031/- The CIT-(A) deleted the additions made by the AO and allowed the appeal ... hence the finding given in the said appeal hereinabove will be application herein. Therefore, the Ground No. 6 is dismissed. 34. Ground No.7 : Disallowance u/s 14A amounted to Rs.1,12,031/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

Shriram Properties (Coimbatore) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 964/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.964/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shriram Properties (Coimbatore) Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward-1, No.31, 2Nd Main Road, Coimbatore. T Chowdaiah Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore, Karnataka-560080. [Pan: Aakcs3522N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Ananthan, C.A & Smt.R.Lalitha, C.A, : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Ananthan, C.A &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

which are being contested by the appellant: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Disallowance of Business Expenditure 4,75,36,943 2. Disallowance u/s 14A 70,759 Being aggrieved by the assessment order passed under section 143(3), the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT

Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Capri Global Holdings Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4140/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

Assesses II] Suomoto Disallowance 2,06,263 7,78,768 4,38,366 u/s 14A made by the Assessee III] Disallowance u/s 14A 86,65,939 2,27,63,198 97,14,869 r.w.r 8D computed by the AO IV] Disallowance u/s 14A

Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Capri Global Holdings Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4139/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

Assesses II] Suomoto Disallowance 2,06,263 7,78,768 4,38,366 u/s 14A made by the Assessee III] Disallowance u/s 14A 86,65,939 2,27,63,198 97,14,869 r.w.r 8D computed by the AO IV] Disallowance u/s 14A

Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Capri Global Holdings Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4138/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

Assesses II] Suomoto Disallowance 2,06,263 7,78,768 4,38,366 u/s 14A made by the Assessee III] Disallowance u/s 14A 86,65,939 2,27,63,198 97,14,869 r.w.r 8D computed by the AO IV] Disallowance u/s 14A

Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4128/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Acit, Circle 27(1), G-202, Kukreja Palace, Vallabh, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Baug Lane, Rajawadi Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Agbpg 9487 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Ramachandran
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50CSection 57

u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015, the nt completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015, t Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting ... which is reproduced as under: ALPESH GO SALIA A.Y. 2012 ALPESH GO SALIA A.Y. 2012-2013 Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia Alpesh Navinchandra WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AS PER WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AS PER WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A