IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1046/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s P. N. Writer & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 105, Writer, Dr. B. Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 033 बनाम/ Vs. DCIT Cir-8(2)(1) R. No. 624, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACP5966B (अपीलधथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Priyesh Gansotta, Ld. AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Shambhu Yadav, Ld. DR सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख / Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 22.03.2022, passed by National Faceless 2 I.T.A. No. 1046/Mum/2022 M/s P. N. Writer & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2009-10. 2. In various grounds, assessee has challenged the disallowance made u/s 14A on the ground that dividend income was only Rs. 85,439/- whereas the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is Rs. 9,36,209/-. 3. Now it is well settled that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income which proposition upheld by Hon'ble Delhi Court in Pr. CIT v. Mc Donalds India (P.) Ltd. ITA 725/2018 decided on 22nd October, 2018 cannot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision of the Hon'ble High Court follows the ratio and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi). 3 I.T.A. No. 1046/Mum/2022 M/s P. N. Writer & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 4. In the case of Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. (114 taxmann.com 529) (2020), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has not entertained revenue's appeal on same basis and held as under: "4..... (d) The Revenue is not able to point out, why the impugned order of the Tribunal should be interfered with by this Court. More particularly in view of the fact that this Court's order in Nirved Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 149 of 2017, dated 23- 4-2019] has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be more than exempt income. (e) In the above view, Question (A) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.' 5. Thus, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs. 85,439/-. This proposition was annexed in the open court for which representative appeared on behalf of assessee has agreed. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Orders pronounced in the open court on 10 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Amit Shukla) Accountant Member Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;नदनधंक Dated : 10/08/2022 4 I.T.A. No. 1046/Mum/2022 M/s P. N. Writer & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलधथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. नवभधगीयप्रनतनननध, आयकरअपीलीयअनधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गधर्ाफधईल / Guard File आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, .उि/सहायकिंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, मुंबई/ ITAT, Mumbai