IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 9467/MUM/2025 ITA No. 9469/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

ITA No. 9468/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax –

3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6^th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 v/s Export Import Bank of India, Centre One Building, Floor 21, World Trade Centre Complex, ……………… Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 PAN : AAACE2769D Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 25/03/2026 Date of Order - 30/03/2026

O R D E R

PER BENCH:

The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 03.10.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2020-21.

2. Since all the appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the Revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 is considered as the lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Revenue’s appeals for the other years before us.

ITA No.9467/Mum/2025 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2018-19

3. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: -

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing relief us. s.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)|(iii), without appreciating the fact that the assessee had neither established that no part of interest-bearing fund as well as expenses so claimed has found its way into the investments in Mutual Funds/Shares nor adduced any documentary evidences during the course of assessment proceedings before the A.0.?.”

4. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is against the deletion of the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules.

5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that from the revised computation of income filed by the assessee during the assessment year 2018–19, it was observed that the assessee claimed exemption of dividend income of Rs. 2,64,65,359/- under section 10(34) of the Act. It was further observed that the assessee quantified the disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs. 14,60,185/-. The AO, vide order dated 08.03.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, disagreed with the quantification of disallowance made by the assessee and computed the disallowance at Rs. 4,47,00,695/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules as follows: -

6. After taking into consideration the suo motu disallowance of Rs.

14,60,185/- made by the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.

4,32,40,510/- under section 14A of the Act.

7. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue on the basis that the source of investment generating exempt income was out of its own funds and not from interest- bearing borrowed funds, and therefore, no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules is warranted. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue are reproduced as follows: -

“(i) Ground No.1:-

During the appellate proceedings, the submission made by the appellant is duly considered and decisions of CIT(A) & ITAT in earlier years are also perused. This is undisputed fact that during the year, the appellant has earned Rs.2,64,65,359/- as 'exempted dividend income'. The appellant suo-moto has disallowed expenditure u/s.14A of the Act of Rs.14,60,185/-.