← 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

Mega Engineers & Builders, Port Blair vs. DCIT, Cir. 3(2), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 312/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 194C

also the issue before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was whether any part of the interest paid by the Bank could be disallowed U/S 14A read with Rule 80(2)(ii). On appeal this Tribunal and thereafter the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that since the Bank ... under Rule 80(2)(iii) is concerned, we find that before the lower authorities the assessee had raised the plea that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since the assessee was a dealer in shares although in its Balance Sheet, shares were disclosed under the head "Investments". We find that

Abusha Investment & Management Services LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 7(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1856/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1856/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Abusha Investment & Management Dcit बनाम/ Services Llp Non Corporate Circle -7(1), 27, Mylairamhanathan Street, Chennai. Vs. Thyagaraja Nagar,Chennai – 600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aazfa-6631-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 14A

Ld.AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30-04-2021. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.403.78 Lacs. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and submitted that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee and Ld. AO erred ... assessee received dividend of Rs.80.15 Lacs and claimed amount of Rs.10 Lacs to be exempt. The Ld. AO proceeded to compute disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee submitted that dividend income became chargeable to tax in this year vide Sec. 115BBDA. The deduction of Rs.10 Lacs was claimed as per this

M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

Appeal stand allowed to the extent of correct adoption of cost of investments

ITA 1215/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1211/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1215/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Vs. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar (Virtual) " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

erred in observing that relied upon decision was not stayed / reversed, whereas in the relied upon case, the disallowance u/s 14A was invoked w.r.t. investments made in foreign companies only not Indian companies and for this reason the order was not challenged further. Hence the decision of the relied upon ... should also have been given credit in the hands of the Appellant. As is evident, the common issue in cross-appeal is disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee also seeks TDS credit of demerged entity. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under

ACIT, Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Holdings Limited, Chennai

Appeal stand allowed to the extent of correct adoption of cost of investments

ITA 1211/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1211/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1215/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Vs. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar (Virtual) " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

erred in observing that relied upon decision was not stayed / reversed, whereas in the relied upon case, the disallowance u/s 14A was invoked w.r.t. investments made in foreign companies only not Indian companies and for this reason the order was not challenged further. Hence the decision of the relied upon ... should also have been given credit in the hands of the Appellant. As is evident, the common issue in cross-appeal is disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee also seeks TDS credit of demerged entity. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under

M/S . Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Circle 10(1), Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 674/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.674/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd Acit बनाम/ 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Non Corporate Circle -10(1), Mrc Nagar Main Road, Chennai. Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1111/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd बनाम/ Non Corporate Circle -10(1), 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar Main Road, Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

appeals on merits. 2. Upon perusal of grounds of appeal, it is evident that the sole subject matter of assessee’s appeal is disallowance u/s 14A. The subject matter of revenue’s appeal is taxability of deferred revenue income. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records ... being owner of a franchise unit i.e., M/s Sunrise Hyderabad in the Indian Premier League (IPL), a cricket tournament on commercial lines. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A 3.1 Though the assessee had made equity investments, it did not offer any disallowance u/s 14A on the ground that the investment were

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sun Tv Network Ltd, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.674/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd Acit बनाम/ 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Non Corporate Circle -10(1), Mrc Nagar Main Road, Chennai. Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1111/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd बनाम/ Non Corporate Circle -10(1), 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar Main Road, Vs. Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Aadcs-4885-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

appeals on merits. 2. Upon perusal of grounds of appeal, it is evident that the sole subject matter of assessee’s appeal is disallowance u/s 14A. The subject matter of revenue’s appeal is taxability of deferred revenue income. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records ... being owner of a franchise unit i.e., M/s Sunrise Hyderabad in the Indian Premier League (IPL), a cricket tournament on commercial lines. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A 3.1 Though the assessee had made equity investments, it did not offer any disallowance u/s 14A on the ground that the investment were

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tarachanthini Financial Services (P) Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 549/CHNY/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.473/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Corporate Circle-3(1) United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.549/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Dcit M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1) #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Chennai. United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Service charges 3299560 5 Addition of Investments 217500493 6 Disallowance of Electronic Transfer charges 7693929 7 Disallowance of Office Maintenance expenses 2279697 8 Disallowance u/s 14A @ 5% of Rs.8,00,256/- 40013 2.3 Addition of increase in Share Capital The addition of increase in share capital and unsecured loans ... Rs.21.26 Lacs on a rented building situated at No.15, Mahalingapuram High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. The same was disallowed for want of evidences. 2.10 Disallowance u/s 14A The assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.8 Lacs but did not offer any disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. AO estimated disallowance

Tarachanthini Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 473/CHNY/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.473/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Corporate Circle-3(1) United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.549/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Dcit M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1) #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Chennai. United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Service charges 3299560 5 Addition of Investments 217500493 6 Disallowance of Electronic Transfer charges 7693929 7 Disallowance of Office Maintenance expenses 2279697 8 Disallowance u/s 14A @ 5% of Rs.8,00,256/- 40013 2.3 Addition of increase in Share Capital The addition of increase in share capital and unsecured loans ... Rs.21.26 Lacs on a rented building situated at No.15, Mahalingapuram High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. The same was disallowed for want of evidences. 2.10 Disallowance u/s 14A The assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.8 Lacs but did not offer any disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. AO estimated disallowance

M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1701/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assess correct income and hence revised working ought to have been considered. 2.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to compute disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only Indian investments from which exempt income is earned. 3. 3.1 On fact and circumstances ... income) to 'book profits' under the provisions of 115JB of the Act. 3.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules are only for computing taxable income as per normal provisions

M/S West Bengal Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1237/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1237/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation……..……………….………...........………………....Appellant Sector-Dj-10, Sector-Ii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Aaacw3073C] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2, Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 27.03.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice, Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr & Going Through The Record.

Section 14ASection 263

Development Corporation is apparent that the assessee did not incur any expenditure during the year for making the investment in question, therefore, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules was attracted in this case. Moreover, considering the facts and circumstances

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1012/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assess correct income and hence revised working ought to have been considered. 2.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to compute disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only Indian investments from which exempt income is earned. 3. 3.1 On fact and circumstances ... income) to 'book profits' under the provisions of 115JB of the Act. 3.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules are only for computing taxable income as per normal provisions

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1011/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assess correct income and hence revised working ought to have been considered. 2.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to compute disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only Indian investments from which exempt income is earned. 3. 3.1 On fact and circumstances ... income) to 'book profits' under the provisions of 115JB of the Act. 3.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules are only for computing taxable income as per normal provisions

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1010/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assess correct income and hence revised working ought to have been considered. 2.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to compute disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only Indian investments from which exempt income is earned. 3. 3.1 On fact and circumstances ... income) to 'book profits' under the provisions of 115JB of the Act. 3.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules are only for computing taxable income as per normal provisions

DCIT, Pune vs. John Deere India Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14A

14A read with rule 8D. The Assessing Officer therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D should not be made. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount ... that when the investments were made out of assessee’s own funds and no interest expenditure was incurred, therefore, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act advanced by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the facts

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act read with Rule 8D of IT Rules amounting to Rs. 3,500/-. (3) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter adduce or amend ... held that the generation of exempt income out of the said investments of Rs.14,00,000/- cannot be ruled out. However, no disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was computed by the assessee against this income. Hence, in view of the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014, a disallowance

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangalore vs. Karnataka Bank Limited., Mangalore

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

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

disallowance can be made u/s 14A. 5.2 Without prejudice to the above. the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the disallowance u/s. 14A worked out by invoking Rule 8D cannot be applied for making an addition while computing the Book Profit u/s 115JB. 6. The learned Assessing ... raised the following grounds:- “1. The order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. Disallowance u/s 14A: ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 4 of 46 The CIT(A) has erroneously allowed relief on the ground that the AO failed to record non-satisfaction

M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

disallowance can be made u/s 14A. 5.2 Without prejudice to the above. the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the disallowance u/s. 14A worked out by invoking Rule 8D cannot be applied for making an addition while computing the Book Profit u/s 115JB. 6. The learned Assessing ... raised the following grounds:- “1. The order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. Disallowance u/s 14A: ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 4 of 46 The CIT(A) has erroneously allowed relief on the ground that the AO failed to record non-satisfaction

DCIT, Central Circle- 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Lok Prakashan Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

ITA 480/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the disallowance u/s. 14A considered in the return of income was reasonable and thus, there was no justification for any further disallowance by the Assessing Officer on this account ... year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the disallowance u/s. 14A considered in ITA Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee) and ITA Nos.479 & 480/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Lok Prakashan Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst. Years

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Lok Prakashan Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

ITA 479/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the disallowance u/s. 14A considered in the return of income was reasonable and thus, there was no justification for any further disallowance by the Assessing Officer on this account ... year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the disallowance u/s. 14A considered in ITA Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee) and ITA Nos.479 & 480/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Lok Prakashan Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst. Years

Lok Prakashan Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed accordingly

ITA 291/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively Lok Prakashan Limited The Acit बनाम/ Gujarat Samachar Bhavan Central Circle-1(3) V/S. J.P. Chowk, Khanpur Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 001 (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) ('( यथ%/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 2742 F

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the disallowance u/s. 14A considered in the return of income was reasonable and thus, there was no justification for any further disallowance by the Assessing Officer on this account ... year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the disallowance u/s. 14A considered in ITA Nos.290 & 291/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee) and ITA Nos.479 & 480/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Lok Prakashan Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst. Years