← 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

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Innovative B2B Logistics Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4823/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) granted relief by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 14A

shares of M/s. Noble Tradecon Private Limited and M/s. B2B Forwarding Agent Ltd. AO noted that assessee has not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee was asked to explain and the assessee stated that it has not received any exempt income during the year

Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 40

attributable towards exempted investment. Accordingly, the assessing officer worked out the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, as follows: WORKING OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A:- ITA.535/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah Therefore, the assessee was asked by assessing officer, vide show cause dated 07.11.2016, to furnish explanation as to why provision ... noted that section 14A of the I.T. Act applies in the assessee’s case and claim of interest expenses is required to be disallowed u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, as per rule 8D of the Rules. Therefore, interest expenses of Rs.7,56,965/- was disallowed under section 14A

Polygel Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1971/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepolygel Industries Pvt. Ltd., V. Pcit – Mumbai – 2 321, The Great Eastern Galleria Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 20, Sector – 4 Mumbai - 400020 Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai Thane - 400706 Pan: Aaack4105F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

passed on 11.02.2021 assessing total income at ₹.50,67,670/- by making addition of ₹.55,301/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, disallowance of ₹.4,37,499/- u/s 43B of the Act and disallowance of ₹.45,74,868/- u/s

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

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

ITA 1731/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Minda Investments Ltd, Central Circle-13, B-64/1, Wazirpur Industrial New Delhi Area, New Delhi, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacl1433F

For Appellant: Shri Harish Dhamija, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

appeal of the assessee by restricting the addition of Rs. 1,88,46,051/- to Rs 31,11,642/- made on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by stating that the average value of investments, where income is exempt during the concerned AY, amounted ... income are reduced from it. IV. Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in calculating the amount of disallowance u/s 14A based on the average value of investments, where income is exempt is received during the concerned A.Y. ignoring the fact that provisions of section

Sh. Nawal Kishore Dangayach, A-34-A, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary ( Addl. CIT) a
Section 14ASection 37

u/s 14A of IT Act, 1961 ignoring that no dividend income has been earned on the investment with reference to which disallowance u/s 14A was made by the AO. 2 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH VS ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts ... stood at Rs.79.36,714/-. Accordingly, assessee vide show cause notice dated 15-12-2018 was required the assessee to explain as to why disallowance u/s 14A should not be made. It is also noted that Assessee filed the explanation as reproduced at Pg 2-3 of the assessment order wherein

Income Tax Officer 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 878/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

AxB/C = AxB/C = 0 3. 0.5% of the ‘B’ above 0.5% of the ‘B’ above 45,70,475 Total disallowance u/s 14A Total disallowance u/s 14A 5,29,49,030 8.1 Out of total disallowance of Rs. 5,29,49,030/ disallowance of Rs. 5,29,49,030/- , the Assessing Officer ... have considered investment in Shares of M/s. Somani & Co. PvtLtd. have considered investment in Shares of M/s. Somani & Co. PvtLtd. while working out disallowance u/s 14A for the reasons that (1) there is while working out disallowance u/s 14A for the reasons that (1) there is while working out disallowance

Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 483/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

AxB/C = AxB/C = 0 3. 0.5% of the ‘B’ above 0.5% of the ‘B’ above 45,70,475 Total disallowance u/s 14A Total disallowance u/s 14A 5,29,49,030 8.1 Out of total disallowance of Rs. 5,29,49,030/ disallowance of Rs. 5,29,49,030/- , the Assessing Officer ... have considered investment in Shares of M/s. Somani & Co. PvtLtd. have considered investment in Shares of M/s. Somani & Co. PvtLtd. while working out disallowance u/s 14A for the reasons that (1) there is while working out disallowance u/s 14A for the reasons that (1) there is while working out disallowance

Bhandara Urban Co-Op Bank, Bhandara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 20/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Appeals) is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming that appellant Bank has not earned any exempt income and therefore the disallowance u/s ... Appeals) is bad in law. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming that appellant Bank has not earned any exempt income and therefore the disallowance u/s

Bhandara Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Bhandara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 19/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Appeals) is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming that appellant Bank has not earned any exempt income and therefore the disallowance u/s ... Appeals) is bad in law. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming that appellant Bank has not earned any exempt income and therefore the disallowance u/s

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. vs. M/S Syndicate Bank, Udupi

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

ITA 337/PAN/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.337/Pan/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Officer, Manipal. Pan : Aaccs4699E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.01/Pan/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.337/Pan/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Syndicate Bank), F.M. Wing, Head Office, 112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002. Pan : Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan Smt. S. Lalitha R. Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthanFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244A

impugned order allowed the ground of appeal relating to the addition of provision for bad and doubtful debts and upheld the addition of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and Rs.10 crores being the provision the credit taken into Profit & Loss Account on account 4 C.O. No.01/PAN/2023 of unreconciled credits

ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delmos Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7894/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of this appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41Section 68

Addition of Rs. 2,84,270/- by disallowing PMS Fees; v. Addition of Rs. 8,40,255/- by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. vi. Addition of Rs. 53,90,000/- on account of increase in remuneration paid to employees.” Page 2 of 17 ACIT vs. Delmos Aviation ... invoking the provision of Section 14A read with Rule 8D made disallowance of Rs. 8,40,255/-. In the appeal, the said disallowance u/s 14A was restricted to the amount of dividend income i.e. Rs. 2,52,128/- and balance disallowance was deleted. The assessee earned exempt income

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

order (ii) re-working of exemption u/s 10A/10B, (iii) capitalization of civil & tiling work in leasehold premise, (iv) depreciation on software, and (v) disallowance u/s 14A. With such disallowances/additions, the AO proposed to determine total income at Rs. 65,98,26,453/-. Against draft- assessment order, the assessee filed objection ... following the same, we uphold AO’s action. The assessee fails in this ground. Ground No. 24: 38. This ground relates to the disallowance u/s 14A on account of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. 39. The AO has, in Para No. 4 of assessment-order, noted that during

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Ltu(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4596/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalidbi Bank Ltd. 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005. Pan: Aabci8842G ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Ltu (2) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 40

under: IDBI Bank Ltd. 4. The first issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is with regard to disallowance u/s. 14A R.W. Rule 8D (iii). It is observed that the AO had not accepted the contention of the assessee that no expenses were incurred to earn ... given below. The assessment u/s. 143(3) was passed by the AO on 26.12.2017. The reasons recorded by the AO before making disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D is contained in para 3.2 of the said order and the same is produced below : “3.2 on further perusal of the details

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh (Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3592/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

therefore the same stands dismissed. Similarly, he submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the Ground Nos. 3 & 4 relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and therefore these grounds are also dismissed. Overall therefore, the appeal for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.2945/Mum/2014 stands dismissed ... further submitted that the assessee is also not pressing the grounds relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 and therefore these grounds taken by the assessee in the respective appeals stand dismissed. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that assesse

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3591/MUM/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

therefore the same stands dismissed. Similarly, he submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the Ground Nos. 3 & 4 relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and therefore these grounds are also dismissed. Overall therefore, the appeal for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.2945/Mum/2014 stands dismissed ... further submitted that the assessee is also not pressing the grounds relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 and therefore these grounds taken by the assessee in the respective appeals stand dismissed. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that assesse

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3590/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

therefore the same stands dismissed. Similarly, he submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the Ground Nos. 3 & 4 relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and therefore these grounds are also dismissed. Overall therefore, the appeal for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.2945/Mum/2014 stands dismissed ... further submitted that the assessee is also not pressing the grounds relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 and therefore these grounds taken by the assessee in the respective appeals stand dismissed. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that assesse

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3589/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

therefore the same stands dismissed. Similarly, he submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the Ground Nos. 3 & 4 relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and therefore these grounds are also dismissed. Overall therefore, the appeal for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.2945/Mum/2014 stands dismissed ... further submitted that the assessee is also not pressing the grounds relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 and therefore these grounds taken by the assessee in the respective appeals stand dismissed. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that assesse

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

whereas as on 31.03.2016 investment was of Rs.75,96,45,638/-. The assessee made no disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. As the assessee was having huge investment in the shares of company that would have resulted in generation of exempt income, the AO had to examine and analyze ... revenue as the said order has been passed by the Assessing Officer in a routine and perfunctory manner without verifying the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act and not verifying the quantum of the allowance to be made u/s 36(1)(va). The order of the Assessing

DCIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 644/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

that the investment in shares was made out of interest free funds. Rejecting the claim of the assessee the AO made the impugned disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for expenses relating to investment in shares as per the method prescribed in Rule 8D. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred ... Therefore, in the light of decision of Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of DCM Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 4567/Del/2022, the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. This view has been approved by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and followed by other Hon’ble High

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

that the investment in shares was made out of interest free funds. Rejecting the claim of the assessee the AO made the impugned disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for expenses relating to investment in shares as per the method prescribed in Rule 8D. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred ... Therefore, in the light of decision of Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of DCM Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 4567/Del/2022, the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. This view has been approved by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and followed by other Hon’ble High