“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer

ITA 3043/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Sanghavi C AFor Respondent: Ms Sanyogita Nagpal CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14Section 143Section 14A

case show that the assessee has earned exempt income during the year of Rs. 24,800,670/–. The assessee on its own offered disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 4,368,868/–. The learned assessing officer computed interest disallowance under rule

Ambika Ghorpade, Bellary vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

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

ITA 906/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija G., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has earned exempt income ... perused the materials available on record. In this case, the exempt income is only Rs.31,600/- by way of dividend and the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot exceed the exempt income earned by assessee in the assessment year under consideration as held

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

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

deduction for bad debt amounting to Rs.132,86,85,561/- was disallowed by the Assessing officer. Further, the Assessing Officer also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and for certain amount of income mismatched with data of Annual Information Return (AIR). On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed ... parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance u/s 14A should be limited to the extent of the exempted income in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma

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

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR

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

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad vs. A2Z Green Waste Management Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5104/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd, O-116, 1St Floor Shopping Central Circle-2, Faridabad Mall, Arjun Marg, Dlf, Phase-1, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeca1203A Dcit, Vs. A2Z Green Waste Central Circle-2, Management Ltd, Faridabad Arjun Marg, Dlf, Phase-1, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeca1203A

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

case of PCIT vs Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd reported in 141 taxmann.com 289 (Del HC) wherein it was held that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be made when there is no exempt income. Further it was held that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section

DCIT, CC-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5102/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3002/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharygodrej Properties Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(2) M/S Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, Mistry Llp, Esplanade Aayakar Bhavan, House, 2Nd Floor, 29, M.K. Road, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 For, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Acit-14(1)(2) Vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Godrej One, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Pirojshanagar, Estern Road, Mumbai – 400020 Express Highway, Vikroli (E) Mumbai – 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Yasmin Dastur Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 28.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2024

For Appellant: Yasmin DasturFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

than the value of investment. Further the ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the contention of the assessee that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D(2) is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the year under consideration and submitted that similar issue ... that interest free funds and loan amount should have been availed at the same time. He contended that AO has correctly made the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D of the I.T Rule 1962. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In respect of disallowance made

Godrej Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2994/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Yasmin DasturFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

than the value of investment. Further the ld. Counsel submitted that 1d. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the contention of the assessee that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D(2) is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned during the year under consideration and submitted that similar issue ... that interest free funds and loan amount should have been availed at the same time. He contended that AO has correctly made the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D of the I.T Rule 1962. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In respect of disallowance made

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Uno Minda Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1733/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos.1732 & 1733/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Dcit Vs. Uno Minda Ltd Central Circle – 13, B-64/1, Wazirpur Industrial New Delhi Area, New Delhi – 110 052 Pan No. Aaacm 1152 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. K. Kapoor, C.A. & Shri Harish Dhamija, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2024

Section 14A

submissions made before lower authorities and further submitted that only those investments which yielded exempt income should be considered for working out disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D as also held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. We find that CIT(A) after following the decision cited in his order has held that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Uno Minda Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1732/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Section 14A

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

course assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made huge investments in equity shares, however, the assessee has not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that though the assessee does not have any exempt income during the year but that ... correct criteria for making disallowance and accordingly made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.11,58,944/- being 0.5% of the total average investments. Pertinent to note that though the amount calculated at 0.5% come to Rs.17,77,903/- but since the assessee has charged to the profit

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 95/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.95/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 14A

pursuant to the directions of Tribunal in ITA Nos.1418/Mds/2014 & 1821/Mds/2014 dated 27.12.2016. In this order, Tribunal remitted back the issue of disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.483.96 Lacs and disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure for Rs.446.86 Lacs. Both these issues were remitted back by Tribunal to the file ... confirmed by 93 Taxman.com 24 SC. As is evident, the additions / disallowance which forms the subject matter of this appeal are i.e., (i) Disallowance u/s 14A; (ii) Disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments on impugned issues citing various judicial decisions and also filed written submissions

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.84/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)Section 43B

Para .6.1 at Page 50). As is evident, the additions / disallowance which forms the subject matter of this appeal are i.e., (i) Disallowance u/s 14A; (ii) Disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure; (iii) Disallowance of Bad debts written-off; (iv) Disallowance of 50% expenditure towards R&D facility: (v) Disallowance ... being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in manufacturing and marketing of fertilizers, pharma, biotech products and providing engineering services. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A 3.1 The assessee earned exempt dividend income for Rs.827.61 Lacs which led Ld. AO to trigger disallowance u/s 14A. The assessee submitted that

Asst CIT RG 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Crisil Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the issue under

ITA 843/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1114/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 7603/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore vs. Valdel Investments Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 960/BANG/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

case of Goldmansachs Ltd. reported in 409 ITR 268, if there is no exempted income earned by the assessee, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In view of the above judgement of jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the revenue