THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is not retrospective.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, amounting to ₹25,290,803. The assessee argued that no disallowance should be made as no exempt income was earned during the year.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income is earned, and the retrospective applicability of amendments to Section 14A.
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.
- PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.354 citing141 Taxmann.com 289 · 2022 · HC
- PCIT v. M/s Era51 citing288 Taxmann 384 · 2022 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
ITA number 1552/M/2023 is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of income tax, Central Circle – 6 (4), Mumbai (the learned assessing officer) against the appellate order passed by The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 54, Mumbai (the learned CIT – A) for assessment year 2018 – 19 dated 16/2/2023 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961( the act) dated 27/3/2021 By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax was allowed.
Therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A stating that CBDT circular number 5/2014 and the explanation to section 14 A introduced with effect from 1/4/2022 has been ignored.
Fact shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of underwriting/distribution of real estate projects. It filed its return of income on 10/10/2018 at a net loss of ₹ 240,635,477/– and book profit under section 115JB at ₹ 42,307,714/–. The return was revised on 28/3/2019 declaring loss of ₹ 198,816,077/–. The book profit remains the same. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny.
The learner assessing officer noted that assessee has a huge investment in equity shares and therefore the expenditure under section 14 A is disallowable. The assessee was questioned. The assessee submitted that
The learned AO is aggrieved with that and has preferred this appeal holding that there is a retrospective amendment to the income tax act and further there is a circular of central board of direct taxes to this effect that even if the assessee has not on any exempt income, the
Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore the issue is decided in absence of the assessee has per information available on record on merits of the case.
On careful consideration of the facts available on record as well as the argument of the learned departmental representative we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee that there cannot be any disallowance under section 14 A of the act when assessee has not earned any exempt income. The honourable Delhi High Court in case of PCIT versus Era Infrastructure P Ltd [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi)/[2022] 288 Taxman 384 has held that Amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from 1-4-2022 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effects. Further the honourable Bombay High Court in Nirved traders private limited (ITA number 149 of 2017) dated 23/4/2019 that the disallowance under section 14 A was to be restricted to the tax-exempt income on during the year. Therefore, now it is an undisputed proposition for assessment year 2018 – 19 is that if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under section 14 A read with rule 8D can be made. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A.
In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07. 2023.
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