DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VIDEOCON REALTY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. This was done because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings, with liberty granted to restore the appeals after the moratorium period.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a real-estate development company, had its income selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made an addition/disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the addition/disallowance made under Section 14A. The proceedings were impacted by the assessee's insolvency status.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 14A,Section 143(3),Section 115JB,Section 250,Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, J M:
The above captioned appeals have been filed by the revenue challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13 and 2016-17. The assessee has also filed a cross objection challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2012-13.
The revenue and the assessee have challenged the appeal and the cross objection on various grounds. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby proceed to decide the appeals and the CO by hearing the Ld. DR and on perusal of material available on record.
As the facts all these cases are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order in these appeals by taking as the lead case for the sake of convenience.
The brief facts are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of real-estate development and had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 17.10.2016 declaring loss at ₹8,34,79,412/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order dated 18.12.2018 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. where the AO determined the total income at ₹ 3,33,47,710/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB at ₹7,20,24,375/- by making an addition/disallowance of ₹11,88,75,497/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the IT Rules.
The assessee was in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. The revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition/disallowance. The assessee has also filed cross objection for AY. 2012-13.
It is observed that the assessee company is undergoing insolvency proceedings before Hon’ble NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) and the Ld DR has also not controverted the said fact. We deem it fit to dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue with the liberty given to the revenue to restore the appeals and also dismiss the CO filed by the assessee with the liberty given to the assessee/RP after the moratorium period as per section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 along with fresh Form 36.
In the result the appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.07.2023
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 →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026