NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Shri Jasvantbhai R Patel vs. Principal Commissioner of Income - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (17 Mar 2023)

Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of IT Act cannot exceed amount of exempted income

MANU/IB/0094/2023

Direct Taxation

The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2015-16 declaring total income of 50,49,400. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) assessing the total income at 51,45,844 after making disallowance under Section 14A of 96,444. The PCIT observed that, the assessee had claimed exempt dividend income of 360 and the assessee had claimed interest expenditure of 17.53 lakhs. In the assessment order, the AO made disallowance under Section 14A of 96,444 on account of administrative expenses.

However, as per the PCIT, while computing the disallowance under Section 14A, the element of interest expenses was not taken into consideration by the AO. According to the PCIT, after considering the interest expenses, amount disallowable under Section 14A read with Rule 8D would come to 5,38,799. Therefore, the PCIT held that, total expenditure of 5,38,799 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was required to be disallowed as against disallowance of 96,444 made in the assessment order.

It is a well-settled principle that, expenditure to be disallowed under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income claimed by the assessee in the return of income. In the case of DCIT v. Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd., the Ahmedabad ITAT held that disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D could not exceed amount of exempted income.

In the instant set of facts, the assessing Officer disallowed a sum of 96,444 against exempt income of 360 claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Therefore, the assessing Officer has already disallowed a sum higher than the amount of exempt income under section 14A of the Act. Further, issue of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A with respect to exempt dividend income was examined during the course of assessment proceedings, and after considering the submissions of the assessee placed before him during the course of assessment proceedings, he disallowed the sum of 96,444 on account of administrative expenses.

Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer in the instant set of facts. Therefore, the order passed by the learned PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is liable to be set aside in the instant set of facts. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   EXPENDITURE   DISALLOWANCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved