← All Phrases

“disallowance u/s 14A”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A2,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance u/s 14A is CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. (223 Taxmann 130), cited in 579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance u/s 14A

CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.
223 Taxmann 130 · 2014 · High Court
579
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.
330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court
207
citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
145 Taxmann.com 641 · 2022 · High Court
46
citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, particularly Rule 8D(iii) for administrative expenses, should only consider investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Section 14A empowers the Assessing Officer to determine expenditure related to income not forming part of total income.

Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT
125 Taxmann.com 72 · 2021 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A is a notional disallowance and cannot be added back while computing Book Profits under section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax purposes.

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO
181 TTJ 600 · 2016 · ITAT
29
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Even if interest expenditure is considered, it cannot be solely attributed to earning exempt dividend income as investors also consider potential capital gains.

PCIT v. J.J. Glastronics (P.) Ltd.
139 Taxmann.com 375 · 2022 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Additions made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot be considered for computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT
38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported
26
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

PCIT v. Dipesh Lalchand Shah
143 Taxmann.com 419 · 2022 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. This applies even if the assessee has made investments in shares or has income from a partnership that is negative.

Judgments citing disallowance u/s 14A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 944/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14A

ITAT in the case of Parry Agro Industries Limited in ITA No.2372 & 2373/Chny/2017. 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that disallowance u/s 14A is called for when the assessee is found to have made investments income from which is not includible in the total income and there ... been accepted by the department on merits. 3.3 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the amount of disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of exempt income earned during the year contrary to the Explanation to section 14A clarifying that disallowance is called for even

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 943/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14A

ITAT in the case of Parry Agro Industries Limited in ITA No.2372 & 2373/Chny/2017. 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that disallowance u/s 14A is called for when the assessee is found to have made investments income from which is not includible in the total income and there ... been accepted by the department on merits. 3.3 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the amount of disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of exempt income earned during the year contrary to the Explanation to section 14A clarifying that disallowance is called for even

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 942/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14A

ITAT in the case of Parry Agro Industries Limited in ITA No.2372 & 2373/Chny/2017. 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that disallowance u/s 14A is called for when the assessee is found to have made investments income from which is not includible in the total income and there ... been accepted by the department on merits. 3.3 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the amount of disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of exempt income earned during the year contrary to the Explanation to section 14A clarifying that disallowance is called for even

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2437/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kumar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, although the Assessing Officer has adopted Rule 8D for computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to the extent of 2% on exempt income by considering the fact that ... Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2436/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kumar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, although the Assessing Officer has adopted Rule 8D for computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to the extent of 2% on exempt income by considering the fact that ... Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2435/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kumar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, although the Assessing Officer has adopted Rule 8D for computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to the extent of 2% on exempt income by considering the fact that ... Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2434/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kumar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, although the Assessing Officer has adopted Rule 8D for computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to the extent of 2% on exempt income by considering the fact that ... Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2433/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kumar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, although the Assessing Officer has adopted Rule 8D for computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to the extent of 2% on exempt income by considering the fact that ... Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2432/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kumar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, although the Assessing Officer has adopted Rule 8D for computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to the extent of 2% on exempt income by considering the fact that ... Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

M/S Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Nandanam vs. DCIT Corporate Circle - 2 [1], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2431/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436 & 2437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 692, Mhu Complex, Corporate Circle -2(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. [Pan: Aaace-1670-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kumar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, although the Assessing Officer has adopted Rule 8D for computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, but the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowance to the extent of 2% on exempt income by considering the fact that ... Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

ITA 1417/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30/03/2023, deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and upheld the disallowance of Rs.144.49 crores made by the A.O. and added back to the income of the assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30/03/2023, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 234A

assessment order dated 24/05/2021, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30/03/2023, deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and upheld the disallowance of Rs.144.49 crores made by the A.O. and added back to the income of the assessee

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Ufo Moviez India Limited, Vs Addl.Cit-27, Office No.12, 3Rd Floor, C. R. Building, Valuable Techno Park, Plot New Delhi. No.53/1, Road No.07, Marol Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-4000093. Pan-Aabcv8900E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm By Way Of This Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, he restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of INR 27,61,157/-, being the dividend income earned by the assessee ... justified in restricting the disallowance to the extent of dividend income. He submitted that authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was called for. On account of the fact that the AO failed to record his satisfaction as to why suo moto

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and

ITA 964/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessee’s appeals 4. Ground No.1 is general in both the appeals. 5. Common ground No.2 in both the appeals is regarding disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The assessee bank in AY 2016-17 had earned a tax free income ... considering the reply of the assessee was not satisfied with the amount of disallowance made by the assessee bank. According to him, the disallowance u/s 14A had to be worked out as per Rule 8D. He therefore, invoked the provisions of Rule 8D and made the following disallowances: Rule Particulars

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

ITA 963/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessee's appeals 4. Ground No.1 is general in both the appeals. 5. Common ground No.2 in both the appeals is regarding disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The assessee bank in AY 2016-17 had earned a tax free income ... considering the reply of the assessee was not satisfied with the amount of disallowance made by the assessee bank. According to him, the disallowance u/s 14A had to be worked out as per Rule 8D. He therefore, invoked the provisions of Rule 8D and made the following disallowances: Rule Particulars

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 877/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessee's appeals 4. Ground No.1 is general in both the appeals. 5. Common ground No.2 in both the appeals is regarding disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The assessee bank in AY 2016-17 had earned a tax free income ... considering the reply of the assessee was not satisfied with the amount of disallowance made by the assessee bank. According to him, the disallowance u/s 14A had to be worked out as per Rule 8D. He therefore, invoked the provisions of Rule 8D and made the following disallowances: Rule Particulars

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 876/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessee's appeals 4. Ground No.1 is general in both the appeals. 5. Common ground No.2 in both the appeals is regarding disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The assessee bank in AY 2016-17 had earned a tax free income ... considering the reply of the assessee was not satisfied with the amount of disallowance made by the assessee bank. According to him, the disallowance u/s 14A had to be worked out as per Rule 8D. He therefore, invoked the provisions of Rule 8D and made the following disallowances: Rule Particulars

ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Deeksha Holding Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit Vs. M/S. Deeksha Holding Ltd. Circle – 7 (1) 26-27, Ground Floor, World New Delhi Trade Centre, Barakhamba Line, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaacd1703G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. U.N. Marwah, Ca Sh. Praveen Goel, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 14ASection 68

14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Act, 1961, without appreciating the legal position that entire investments should be considered while computing the disallowance u/s 14A." 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance ... ground that most of the dividend has been received from 5 group companies. It was strongly contended that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act can be made only after considering those investments from which exempt income has been earned. 12. The CIT(A) was convinced with the contention

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 478/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

scrutiny and the assessments u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) were completed by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act; and disallowance on account of amortization of lease rentals. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeals before the learned ... excepting difference in quantum. Admittedly, facts are also identical. 10. Ground nos. 1 & 2 in both the assessment years relate to deletion of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that admittedly for the assessment years under consideration the assessee has not earned

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 477/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

scrutiny and the assessments u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) were completed by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act; and disallowance on account of amortization of lease rentals. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeals before the learned ... excepting difference in quantum. Admittedly, facts are also identical. 10. Ground nos. 1 & 2 in both the assessment years relate to deletion of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that admittedly for the assessment years under consideration the assessee has not earned

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1043/DEL/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

scrutiny and the assessments u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) were completed by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act; and disallowance on account of amortization of lease rentals. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeals before the learned ... excepting difference in quantum. Admittedly, facts are also identical. 10. Ground nos. 1 & 2 in both the assessment years relate to deletion of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that admittedly for the assessment years under consideration the assessee has not earned