SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD
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 Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee's exempt income. Since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowances made under Section 14A were deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against disallowances made under Section 14A. The primary contention was that no exempt income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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
- CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.579 citing223 Taxmann 130 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.444 citing80 Taxmann.com 221 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 346/HYD/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart, HYDERABAD HYDERABAD Vs [PAN: AAJFS6312C] The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of Hearing : 08-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 19-02-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH :
These two assessee’s appeals for AY.2012-13 arise from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s orders dated 11-01-2019 & 15-01- 2019 passed in appeal Nos.0204 & 0022/DCIT-7(1)/CIT(A)- 3/2016-17, in proceedings u/s.143(3) & 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
:- 2 -: & 346/Hyd/2019
The assessee has raised the following similar substantive grounds in the instant appeals involving varying sum(s): “1.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and ought to have admitted the appeal. 2.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal on merits by condoning the delay. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact there is no exempt income earned by your appellant and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.Your appellant submits that since there is no exempt income earned by your appellant, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 5.Your appellant submits that in view of the settled law that there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A in the absence of exempt income, prays that the addition may be deleted. 6.For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing your appellant prays that the disallowance u/s.14A may be deleted”.
At the outset, learned authorised representative submitted that there is no dividend income derived in the relevant previous years. He relied on the following case law:
i. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [80 taxmann.com 221] (Madras); ii. CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., [223 Taxman 130] (Guj); iii. Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del)
This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the departmental side.
:- 3 -: & 346/Hyd/2019
Their lordships hold in above decisions that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income and not otherwise. We therefore delete the impugned Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowances.
These two assessee’s appeal are allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2021
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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026