ITAT Holds Estimated Disallowance Under Rule 8D Cannot Justify Penalty; Deletes 6.23 Lakhs Section 270A Penalty:

ITAT Holds Estimated Disallowance Under Rule 8D Cannot Justify Penalty; Deletes 6.23 Lakhs Section 270A Penalty

ITAT Holds Estimated Disallowance Under Rule 8D Cannot Justify Penalty; Deletes 6.23 Lakhs Section 270A Penalty The ITAT Delhi has allowed a

Application of Formula in Rule 8D Does Not Give Rise to Misreporting of Income

authorSaloni KumaridateMay 26, 2026
Last update on May 26, 2026

ITAT Holds Estimated Disallowance Under Rule 8D Cannot Justify Penalty; Deletes 6.23 Lakhs Section 270A Penalty

The ITAT Delhi has allowed an appeal by deleting the penalty of Rs. 6.23 lakh imposed on Inox Infrastructure Limited under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act and observed that a disallowance calculated as per Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which is based on estimation and a prescribed formula, cannot itself lead to a case of misreporting of income.

Finance Ministry Notifies Anti-Dumping Duty on Chinese Monoisopropylamine

The appellant, Inox Infrastructure Limited, declared a total income of Rs 31.28 lakh in the income returns for the assessment year 2017-18. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) calculated another amount of Rs 9.44 lakh in the head of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, consequently assessing the total income at Rs 40.72 lakh. Concurrently, penalty proceedings were initiated against the company.
ITAT Remands back Income Tax Addition on Delhivery Freight Services Over Unreconciled Transport Vendor Balances
In appeal, the assessee argued that the estimation of disallowance was based on a prescribed formula and therefore could not lead to a penalty for misreporting income unless any concealment of facts is proved. The Tribunal accepted this line of reasoning after noting that the CIT(A) had already directed the Assessing Officer to ensure the disallowance was restricted to the total expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year. Since the quantum addition itself was not final in its original form and required fresh calculation, the penalty could not stand on firm footing.

About Author

Saloni Kumari

Content Writer

Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2389
Up Next

Loading suggestions…