“disallowance u/s 14A”

Awaita Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2015-16

making the addition) and ultimately rejected the contention of the Revenue Department to the effect “that as per circular No.5 dated 11.02.2014 a disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D can be effected even in a case where a tax payer has not earned any exempt income in a particular year ... context of affecting a disallowance in connection therewith”. 5.3 Since the Assessee has not earned any exempt income and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted, hence respectfully following the aforesaid judgments, the addition under challenge is deleted. 5 M/s. Awaita Properties Private Limited 6. In effect

Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D: That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making ... additional disallowance u/s 14A by invoking rule 8D and not restricting the disallowance to the suo-moto amount disallowed by the appellant. 2 Mahanagar Gas Ltd., AY 2020-21 The Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) has made the addition u/s 14A for Rs. 7,01,51,404/- to total income

Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Mahanagar Gas Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Mgl House, G33, Income Tax Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Circle 14(2)(1), Mumbai- 400051. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Pan: Aabcm4640G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri P. P. Jayaraman, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 27 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/ S/250/2023-24/1059081791(1) Dated 26/12/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: “1. Disallowance U/S 14A R.W.R 8D: That On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Making

vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1059081791(1) dated 26/12/2023 for assessment year 2018-19. 2. Following grounds of appeal have been raised: “1. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D: That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred ... arithmetic mistake, Ld. CIT(A) has corrected the same but passed the order confirming the disallowance at Rs.5,96,10,581/- thereby additional disallowance u/s 14A is made to the extent of Rs.5,74,31,947/- (Rs.5,96,10,581/- less Suo-moto disallowance made Rs.21,78,634/-). The appellant

Supreme Nonwovens Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

income amount to Rs.1,69,01,920/- was properly disallowed. 5. The Ld.AR further argued that no satisfaction was recorded by the Ld.AO.The disallowance U/s 14A was in mechanical manner. The disallowance was made which is against the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp ... proposed to be treated as the assessed income of the appellant. In view of forgoing, the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 77,17,358/- (Rs.2,46,19,278 - Rs.1,69,01,920/-) is held to be justified. Hence, Ground

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

facts and under the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act will not apply as the assessee has not earned exempt income during the year under consideration ignoring the fact that the assessee ... being the first year of operation therefore there is only closing balances of the investments. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain why disallowance u/s. 14A should not computed by applying Rule 8D since the assessee company was maintaining composite accounts for its investment and business activity. 7. The assessee

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Dcit 3(3)1 Vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Room No. 522, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Limited K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji 400 020. Centre Mumbai, Colaba S.O, Pan: Aaxcs6219B Mumbai – 400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent)

facts and under the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act will not apply as the assessee has not earned exempt income during the year under consideration ignoring the fact that the assessee ... being the first year of operation therefore there is only closing balances of the investments. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain why disallowance u/s. 14A should not computed by applying Rule 8D since the assessee company was maintaining composite accounts for its investment and business activity. 7. The assessee

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

utilised funds from a common pool of funds therefore, AO has worked out an amount of Rs. 1,02,87,455/- as disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 15. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground of appeal ... issue process, 70% of the expenses of Rs.87.73 lacs written off in that year by the assessee amounting to Rs.62 lacs was disallowed u/s. 14A as the dividend income in respect of UTI was exempt under the Act. It is mentioned by the Assessing Officer that excluding the investment

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

utilised funds from a common pool of funds therefore, AO has worked out an amount of Rs. 1,02,87,455/- as disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 15. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground of appeal ... issue process, 70% of the expenses of Rs.87.73 lacs written off in that year by the assessee amounting to Rs.62 lacs was disallowed u/s. 14A as the dividend income in respect of UTI was exempt under the Act. It is mentioned by the Assessing Officer that excluding the investment

DCIT CC 4.4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Indagro Foods Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Dcit, Cc-4.4 Vs. Indagro Foods Pvt. Ltd. 1918, Air India Building Allana House, Colaba Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400001 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci6584Q Appellant .. Respondent

also received dividend income of Rs.12,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessing officer asked the assesse to explain why the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not be made in accordance with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 at Rs. 138,14,309/- as against ... applicable on the investment on which assessee company has yielded dividend income during the year. Further the assessee stated that in any case disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed dividend income actually earned by the assessee to the amount of Rs.12,000/-, however, the AO has not agreed with the submission