← 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

Maithan Alloys Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sidhhrath Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

that amendment made in section 14A of the Act by finance Act ,2022 , will be applicable prospectively and it was also held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The issue is also covered ... held that the amendment made in Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022, will be applicable prospectively and also held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. Therefore, since the assessee has earned exempt income

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result,appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 5915/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax बनाम 12Th Floor, 3(2)(1),Aayakarbhawan, Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Room No. 608 Mumbai – Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., V/S. Assistant Commissioner 12Th Floor, बनाम Of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Marg, Aayakarbhawan, Room No. 229Nariman Point Mumbai - 400 608 Mumbai – 400 020, 021, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakkani,ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

facts and circumstances of the case provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable and hence the disallowance u/s 14A may be restricted to INR 6,384/-. 3.1Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of INR 48,51,700/-without ... erred in considering taxable investment in the calculation of total investment u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii)& (iii) without appreciating the fact that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D is warranted only on investments which generate exempt income. 4. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A)observed that the appellant claimeddividend income

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1228/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S / Ms. LalithaFor Respondent: ShriAshish Heliwal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting a sum of Rs. 4,27,73,538/- towards disallowance u/s 14A in computing the book profit u/s 115 JB of the Act?" (xii) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... favor of the assessee without duly considering the relevant facts. As per the ratio laid down by above cited case laws, the disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made, when the assessee has earned any exempt income. In the instant case, it is submitted that the interest free funds

Jagdamba Commotrade LLP (Earstwhile Jagdamba Commotrade Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 32(1)(Erstwhile ITO - 5(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, A/O is directed to decide the issue of disallowance u/s14A after hearing and verifying the same as above

ITA 2139/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

disallowance u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 162,20,000/- has been added in the total income of the assessee and further disallowance u/s 14A an amount of Rs. 207415/- has also been added. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before ... assessee has been 3 I.T.A. No. 2139/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jagdamba Commotrade LLP received. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the disallowance u/s 14A is also bad in law as the assessee did not earn any exempt income during FY 2011-12. The Ld. Counsel cited a decision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

order of the Jurisdictional High Court .” 14.1 In view of this, we dismiss the above ground taken by the revenue on disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

ITA 222/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Abrarana &Anantham, A.Rs
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)

Note Counting Machine & Weighing Machine 3,05,59,246 5. Penalty under Explanation to Section 37(1) 2,03,00,000 6. Disallowance u/s 14A 11,41,31,065 7. Depreciation on Leased Assets 1,02,865 8. Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Shares of CanFin Home ... order of the Jurisdictional High Court . 14.1 In view of this, we dismiss the above ground taken by the revenue on disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

ITA 210/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Abrarana &Anantham, A.Rs
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 38(1)(vii)

learned CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D amounting to Rs.1,41,31,065/- 2. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to pass

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

ITA 1154/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Abarana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 38(1)

learned CIT(A) erred in against the law and facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D amounting to Rs.1,41,31,065/- 2. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer ... Depreciation on ATM, Note Counting Machine & Weighing Machine 2,03,00,000 5. Penalty for non-Deduction to Section 37(1) 6. Disallowance u/s 14A 7. Depreciation on Leased Assets 8. Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of shares of CanFin Home Ltd. 9. Disallowance of Provision for Bad & Doubtful

M/S Niwas Residential & Commercial Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai

ITA 2114/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 14ASection 263

reply thereto, the assessee submitted that that it has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and hence no disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made. The assessee also submitted that the Demat charges relating to investments has already been disallowed voluntarily by the assessee while ... fact whether any exempt income has been earned during the financial year or not. Accordingly, the Ld.PCIT took the view that the disallowance u/s 14A should have been made by the AO. Since the AO did not make any disallowance u/s 14A, he held that the assessment order passed

The Muzaffarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Muzaffarpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzffarpur, Muzaffarpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.280/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Muzaffarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd..…....Appellant Sadar Hospital Road, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Aabat7831Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur…………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Anwar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society & Engaged In Banking Business. For The Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.10.2016 By Showing A Total Income Of Rs.65,05,270/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny In Terms Of Guidelines Issued By The Cbdt Vide Instruction No.5/2007. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & In Response To The Said Notices, No One Turned Up Before The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Therefore Passed An Order U/S 144 By Making Certain Additions In Following Manner:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

Muzaffarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd “Total Income as per return as discussed in para 4 Rs.1,05,52,001/- Add: Disallowance u/s 14A as discussed in para 5 Rs. 3,60,000/- Floating provision of NPA as per para 6 Rs. 75,00,000/- Delay in depositing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs. Mahalaxmi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

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

ITA 979/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) amounting to Rs.10,29,58,075/-; (ii) disallowance on helicopter expenses of Rs.47,77,646/-; (iii) disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“IT Rules") of Rs.22,83,215/- and (iv) disallowance on account of depreciation on luxury cars ... relief to the assessee in respect of the above additions/disallowances made by the Ld. AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4), disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D and depreciation on luxury car. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 36(1)(viia) Rs.879,11,91,472 b. Addition on account of profit on sale of investments Rs.156,93,61,000 c. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D Rs.2,74,04,686 d. Disallowance of write back provision for Rs.260,75,46,000 restructured advance e. Disallowance of write

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan & Smt. Abarna CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

u/s 36(1)(viia) - Rs.879,11,91,472 b. Addition on account of profit on sale of investments - Rs.156,93,61,000 c. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - Rs.2,74,04,686 d. Disallowance of write back provision for restructured advance - Rs.260,75,46,000 e. Disallowance of write

Sundaram Fastners Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2501/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2501/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.92/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Sundram Fasteners Limited Ito बनाम/ 98-A, 7Th Floor, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Corporate Ward-6(1) Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacs-8779-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80GSection 92C

AO/DRP failed to consider number of ITAT decisions on identical issue including Allegis Services (India) Private Limited. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1693/Bang/2019). 3. Disallowance u/s 14A: 3.1 The AO/DRP erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.3,22,41,331/- as expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does ... correctness of the claim of the appellant as per Section 14A(2). 3.3 Without prejudice, the AO/DRP ought to have appreciated that the disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed dividend income earned. 3.4 The AO/DRP failed to appreciate that as per Rule 80(2)(ii), investments from which no dividend income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and erred in law in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that expenditure amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/ - incurred towards earning exempt income has already been suo-moto ... without appreciating the fact that the appellant had sufficient own funds out of which investments had been made and therefore, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) is unwarranted. 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to Ground

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3579/MUM/2024[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

said to have incurred in relation to investment in shares, most important no dividend income earned during the year under consideration. Therefore no disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D is called for. The contention of the assessee in this respect is not acceptable. The Hon'ble CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated ... case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 91 Taxmann.com. 154. held that the appellant (or) main object would not be a relevant consideration for disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. If the expense is incurred for earning the dividend income, then such expenses which is attributable to the dividend income

Welspun Mercantile Ltd.(Now Merged With M/S. Mgn Agro Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 8 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no

ITA 269/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Harsh Kapadia & Ajay Nagpal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 69C

under- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) to Rs.1,56,794/- as against Rs.84,78,409/- made by the AO as per formula laid down in the Rule ... above grounds of appeal.” From the above grievance it can be seen that both the parties are aggrieved on the disallowance u/s 14A and the treatment of gains from sale of shares. आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I.T.A. No. 1062/Mum/2019 I.T.A. No. 269/Mum/2019 4 6. Representatives of both

DCIT, CC- 3 (3), Mumbai vs. Welspun Mercantile Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no

ITA 1062/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Harsh Kapadia & Ajay Nagpal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 69C

under- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) to Rs.1,56,794/- as against Rs.84,78,409/- made by the AO as per formula laid down in the Rule ... above grounds of appeal." From the above grievance it can be seen that both the parties are aggrieved on the disallowance u/s 14A and the treatment of gains from sale of shares. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I.T.A. No. 1062/Mum/2019 I.T.A. No. 269/Mum/2019 4 6. Representatives of both the sides were

Agrasen Engineering Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

earned exempt income in the form of dividend income of Rs. 8,55,037/- the assessee was asked show cause as to why disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 should not be made. In that matter, the assessee filed a reply ... that section 14A of the Act does not use the word "income of the year but "income under the Act" therefore, to invoke disallowance u/s. 14A, it is not material that assessee should have earned such exempt income during the financial year under consideration. The onus of the assessee

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

facts, it may be admitted. We agree that the additional ground is legal in nature and intrinsically linked to the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the same is admitted for adjudication. - 14.1 In various interrelated grounds, it is contented that *NFAC erred in not adjudicating ... assessee is dismissed.** 20.In result, the appeal of the assessee is **partly allowed.** # **ITA No. 4103/MUM/2023(Departmental appeal)** 21. **GROUND No. 1- Disallowance U/s. 14A- Administrative Expenses** ![](_page_19_Picture_8.jpeg) *1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances,the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that disallowance u/s 14A