ITAT, Mumbai grants relief to Shilpa Shetty Kundra

ITAT, Mumbai grants relief to Shilpa Shetty Kundra


ITAT, Mumbai grants relief to Shilpa Shetty Kundra


CASE NAME:  Shilpa Shetty Kundra Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax,






  • The assessee is a film actor by profession was assessed  for impugned AY wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 420.20 Lacs after sole disallowance u/s 14A for Rs. 8.95 Lacs as against returned income of Rs. 411.25 Lacs. The disallowance u/s 14A is the sole subject of present appeal. 
  • During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.9, 08,198/- against the investment of Rs.16.87 Crores.
  • The Ld. AO, noticing that no disallowance against the same was offered by the assessee, computed expense disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) for Rs.8.95 Lacs computed as 0.5% of average investments of Rs.17.90 Crores. Accordingly, the same was added to the income of the assessee.
  • Aggrieved, the assesse agitated the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assesse drew attention to the erroneous calculations made by Ld. AO . However this plea got rejected for want of documentary evidences.
  • The Ld. CIT(A) , noticing churning of funds during impugned AY, concluded that the provisions of section 14A were rightly invoked and disallowance was justified

Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal.



  • Granting relief to the assessee, the Tribunal noted that the assessee has already offered suo-moto disallowance of Rs.2.34 Lacs u/s 14A in her computation of income, which has been overlooked by the lower authorities. 
  • Another undisputed fact that emerges is that disallowance against average investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the impugned AY works out to Rs.0.84 Lacs which is less than suo-moto disallowance as offered by the assessee.
  • It is further noted that the assessee has debited various expenditure aggregating to Rs.59.53 Lacs in the profit & loss account. The expenditure under the head commission & depreciation aggregate to Rs.54.24 Lacs whereas the balance expenditure under other heads aggregate to Rs.5.29 Lacs.
  • The commission and depreciation have no nexus with earning of exempt income whereas out of balance expenditure of Rs.5.29 Lacs, the assessee has already offered suo-moto expenditure of Rs.2.34 Lacs. 
  • The same, in our opinion, was more than sufficient to cover up the requisite disallowance. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the additional disallowance of Rs.8.95 Lacs as made by Ld. AO could not be sustained. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal,” the Tribunal said.

Article Assistant 

Maitri Badani

(Team SSRPN)