BABANRAO DAGADU SHELKE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is permissible. This decision followed precedents from various High Courts.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Civil Contractor, incurred interest expenses on borrowed funds and invested in tax-free dividend income. The AO disallowed Rs. 850,066 under Section 14A, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that no exempt income was earned during the year.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT1,569 citing378 ITR 33 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd.53 citing425 ITR 700 · 2020 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER R.S. SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-4, Pune on 06-06-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.850,066/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’).
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Civil Contractor. The AO observed during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee borrowed certain funds
2 Babanrao Dagadu Shelke
on which liability to pay interest was incurred and certain amounts
were invested in earning tax free dividend income. He, therefore,
computed the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D at Rs.8,50,066/-.
The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A), as has been recorded on page 10 para 5.2.3 of the impugned order, that no exempt income was earned during the year. The ld. CIT(A)
echoed the assessment order on this point.
We have heard both the sides through Virtual Court and gone
through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee
specifically raised the issue before the ld. CIT(A) that no exempt
income was earned. The same was not controverted. Still the authorities proceeded to make and confirm the disallowance
u/s.14A. In the absence of any finding to this effect, we have proceeded to examine the contention. A copy of the assessee’s
Profit and loss account has been placed at page 4 of the paper
book, which shows the figure of net profit at Rs.2,46,98,881/-. In the computation of income, at page 2 of the paper book, same
figure has been adopted for computing income from Business and profession. Thus, it is evident that the entire income from business, as shown in the Profit and loss account, has been 3 Babanrao Dagadu Shelke
considered as taxable forming part of business profits of the assessee and there is no exempt income.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) has held that if there is no exempt income,
there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC.
More recently the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS.
Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom) has held
that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. As the assessee in the instant case did not earn any exempt income, respectfully
following the precedent, we hold that no disallowance was called
for. The impugned order is overturned and the sustenance of the disallowance is deleted.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th March, 2021. (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; "दनांक Dated : 18th March, 2021 सतीश
4 Babanrao Dagadu Shelke
आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: क" क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ" / The Appellant;
""यथ" / The Respondent;
The CIT(A)-4, Pune
The Pr. CIT-3, Pune िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे 5. “A” / DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune गाड" फाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
Date
Draft dictated on 18-03-2021 Sr.PS
Draft placed before author 18-03-2021 Sr.PS
Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member
Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member.
Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS
Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS
Date of uploading order Sr.PS
File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk
Date on which file goes to the A.R.
Date of dispatch of Order. *
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026