2026 (5) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollowing grounds of appeal: - "1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding disallowance of Rs. 2,54,373/- that had been made in the regular assessment order dated 28.08.2019, by applying section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962; 2. the Authorities below, have misconstrued/misapplied the explanation below section 14A of the Act, that had been inserted by the Finance Act, 2022; 3. in any case the explanation, even if clarificatory of nature, has no retrospective effect and the disallowance made/sustained by the authorities below, is wholly erroneous; 4. the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isallowance made by the assessee is not correct. He further submitted that in the present case, the exempt income earned by the assessee is Rs. 31,070/-, whereas the disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer is much higher than such exempt income, which is impermissible in law. In support of his contentions, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements, including the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. JSW Energy Ltd. (2023) 153 taxmann.com 208 (Bom), PCIT vs. Tata Capital Ltd. (2024) 161 taxmann.com 557 (Bom), and PCIT vs. Keti Construction Ltd. (2024) 162 taxmann.com 278, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. (2024) 164 taxmann.com 376 (Cal)....