My whole exempt dividend income has been wiped out by the s.14A disallowance. Is that permissible?
No. A disallowance that works out to the whole of, or more than, the exempt income cannot stand — by no stretch can s.14A or Rule 8D be read to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The Delhi High Court set aside a disallowance amounting to about 110 per cent of the dividend earned.
Decided by the High Court (S. Ravindra Bhat J and R.K. Gauba J (judgment delivered in open court by S. Ravindra Bhat J)) on 2015-02-25, reported as ITA 117/2015 (High Court of Delhi). It bears on section 14A, section 14A(2), section 14A(3), section Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Capital Gains Exemptions, Assessment & Scrutiny and Penalty matters.
This is the case practitioners actually cite when the Rule 8D arithmetic overtakes the dividend. It is a double-barrelled decision: the cap on quantum, and the separate and independently fatal failure of the Assessing Officer to say why the assessee's own s.14A computation was rejected. Both grounds were taken and both succeeded. The limit is that the Court remitted rather than deleted — so expect a fresh computation, not a walk-away. The competing line to know about is the department's argument since the Finance Act 2022 Explanation that the disallowance is no longer tethered to the exempt income at all; the Delhi High Court has continued to apply the cap after that amendment (PCIT v Alchemist Ltd / PCIT v Uno Minda Ltd, 7 August 2024), but the point is live and should not be described to a client as settled.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was engaged in diverse investment activities and derived income from rent, sale of investments, dividend and interest. For AY 2009-10 it reported a loss of Rs 52,56,197 and declared tax exempt dividend income of Rs 48,90,000. It volunteered Rs 2,97,440 as attributable under s.14A for disallowance. The Assessing Officer, on his own understanding of Rule 8D, disallowed Rs 52,56,197 under s.14A read with Rule 8D. The aggregate of the three Rule 8D(2) components as worked out by the officer was Rs 99,45,325, which he restricted to Rs 52,56,197. The Commissioner (Appeals) and then the Tribunal (in ITA 85/Del/2014) upheld the officer, the Tribunal reasoning that since the half per cent component alone came to Rs 65,36,743 the correctness of the interest computation was of academic interest. The assessee's grievance was that the entire tax exempt income of Rs 48,90,000 was lower than the disallowance.
The Tribunal's order was set aside, the question of law answered in favour of the assessee, the assessment order and the initiation of penalty proceedings set aside, and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration; the appeal was partly allowed (para 10).
The Court identified three defects. First, the Assessing Officer had not disclosed why the assessee's claim attributing Rs 2,97,440 as the s.14A disallowance had to be rejected; following Taikisha Engineering, the jurisdiction to go further and determine amounts is derived only after examination of the accounts and rejection of the assessee's claim or explanation. Second, there appeared to have been no scrutiny of the accounts by the officer at all, an aspect completely unnoticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Third, and described by the Court as an anomaly of which it could not be unmindful, the disallowance directed came to nearly 110 per cent of the entire tax exempt income; the window for disallowance in s.14A is only to the extent of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income, and that portion cannot swallow the whole (para 9). The Court set out at para 8 the passage from Taikisha Engineering holding that sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D is not reached until the Assessing Officer has first recorded the satisfaction mandated by s.14A(2) and Rule 8D(1).
By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. A disallowance that works out to the whole of, or more than, the exempt income cannot stand — by no stretch can s.14A or Rule 8D be read to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The Delhi High Court set aside a disallowance amounting to about 110 per cent of the dividend earned. This was decided by the High Court (S. Ravindra Bhat J and R.K. Gauba J (judgment delivered in open court by S. Ravindra Bhat J)) and bears on section 14A, section 14A(2), section 14A(3), section Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA 117/2015 (High Court of Delhi). This is the case practitioners actually cite when the Rule 8D arithmetic overtakes the dividend. It is a double-barrelled decision: the cap on quantum, and the separate and independently fatal failure of the Assessing Officer to say why the assessee's own s.14A computation was rejected. Both grounds were taken and both succeeded. The limit is that the Court remitted rather than deleted — so expect a fresh computation, not a walk-away. The competing line to know about is the department's argument since the Finance Act 2022 Explanation that the disallowance is no longer tethered to the exempt income at all; the Delhi High Court has continued to apply the cap after that amendment (PCIT v Alchemist Ltd / PCIT v Uno Minda Ltd, 7 August 2024), but the point is live and should not be described to a client as settled. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put the two figures side by side in the grounds: exempt income earned in the year, and disallowance directed. If the second is anywhere near the first, lead with that.
The assessee was engaged in diverse investment activities and derived income from rent, sale of investments, dividend and interest. For AY 2009-10 it reported a loss of Rs 52,56,197 and declared tax exempt dividend income of Rs 48,90,000. It volunteered Rs 2,97,440 as attributable under s.14A for disallowance. The Assessing Officer, on his own understanding of Rule 8D, disallowed Rs 52,56,197 under s.14A read with Rule 8D. The aggregate of the three Rule 8D(2) components as worked out by the officer was Rs 99,45,325, which he restricted to Rs 52,56,197. The Commissioner (Appeals) and then the Tribunal (in ITA 85/Del/2014) upheld the officer, the Tribunal reasoning that since the half per cent component alone came to Rs 65,36,743 the correctness of the interest computation was of academic interest. The assessee's grievance was that the entire tax exempt income of Rs 48,90,000 was lower than the disallowance. The matter was decided on 2015-02-25 by the High Court (S. Ravindra Bhat J and R.K. Gauba J (judgment delivered in open court by S. Ravindra Bhat J)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The Tribunal's order was set aside, the question of law answered in favour of the assessee, the assessment order and the initiation of penalty proceedings set aside, and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration; the appeal was partly allowed (para 10).
The Court identified three defects. First, the Assessing Officer had not disclosed why the assessee's claim attributing Rs 2,97,440 as the s.14A disallowance had to be rejected; following Taikisha Engineering, the jurisdiction to go further and determine amounts is derived only after examination of the accounts and rejection of the assessee's claim or explanation. Second, there appeared to have been no scrutiny of the accounts by the officer at all, an aspect completely unnoticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Third, and described by the Court as an anomaly of which it could not be unmindful, the disallowance directed came to nearly 110 per cent of the entire tax exempt income; the window for disallowance in s.14A is only to the extent of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income, and that portion cannot swallow the whole (para 9). The Court set out at para 8 the passage from Taikisha Engineering holding that sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D is not reached until the Assessing Officer has first recorded the satisfaction mandated by s.14A(2) and Rule 8D(1). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed." The decision followed or applied Commissioner of Income Tax VI v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (ITA 115/2014, decided 25 November 2014) — followed.
It was decided by the High Court on 2015-02-25 and is reported as ITA 117/2015 (High Court of Delhi). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 14A, section 14A(2), section 14A(3), section Rule 8D, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Tribunal's order was set aside, the question of law answered in favour of the assessee, the assessment order and the initiation of penalty proceedings set aside, and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration; the appeal was partly allowed (para 10). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Capital Gains Exemptions, Assessment & Scrutiny and Penalty matters, on section 14A, section 14A(2), section 14A(3), section Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by S. Ravindra Bhat J and R.K. Gauba J (judgment delivered in open court by S. Ravindra Bhat J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Separately, quote from the assessment order the passage in which the officer dealt with your own voluntary disallowance; if there is none, the Rule 8D(2) computation was made without jurisdiction. Ask for the accounts-based examination on remand rather than a bare deletion, since that is the relief this Court in fact gave. Check whether penalty was initiated on the disallowance — the Court set the initiation aside along with the assessment. For years from AY 2022-23, be ready for the Revenue to argue that the Explanation displaces the cap, and address it rather than ignore it.
Still good law. The proposition that a Rule 8D disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned in the year was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Alchemist Ltd and PCIT v. Uno Minda Ltd (ITA 362/2024 and ITA 384/2024, 7 August 2024), which was read in full for this pass and which follows PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue argued in those appeals that the Explanation inserted in s.14A by the Finance Act 2022 removes the link to actual exempt income; the Delhi High Court rejected that for years before AY 2022-23. Whether the cap survives for AY 2022-23 onwards has not been decided by any judgment located in this pass, and no Supreme Court treatment was traced. Treat the cap as good law for the earlier years and as open for the later ones. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Full text read from indiankanoon ?type=print; para 9 re-confirmed verbatim through /docfragment/. The judgment is short and was delivered in open court on the day of admission. The Rule 8D discussed in the Tribunal passage reproduced at para 4 is the version in force before 2 June 2016 — it refers to Rule 8D(2)(ii) and to half a per cent under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Those limbs no longer exist in that form; the cap and the satisfaction requirement do not depend on them. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal's order was set aside, the question of law answered in favour of the assessee, the assessment order and the initiation of penalty proceedings set aside, and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration; the appeal was partly allowed (para 10).
TaxSphere, “Joint Investments Pvt Ltd v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/joint-investments-14a-disallowance-cannot-swallow-exempt-income/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Assessing Officer has applied Rule 8D to an assessment year before 2008-09. Can he?
The Assessing Officer has computed a s.14A disallowance under Rule 8D. Which version of Rule 8D applies to my year, and is the disallowance capped?
Your own funds exceed the tax-free investments. Can interest still be disallowed proportionately?
I said I incurred no expenditure to earn my dividend income, and the officer simply applied rule 8D and disallowed a large sum. Can he go straight to the formula?
