M/S GOYAL SALES PVT LTD,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), RAIPUR (CG)
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 disallowance cannot be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year, disagreeing with the CBDT circular and relying on various High Court judgments.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 6,83,886/- made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee claimed to have not derived any exempt income during the assessment year.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the relevant 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(4)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.
- CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.579 citing45 Taxmann.com 116 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.444 citing80 Taxmann.com 221 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.421 citing95 Taxmann.com 250 · 2018 · SC
- 116 (Guj) and Pr.CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd.23 citing66 Taxmann.com 356 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I (CIT(A) in short), Raipur dated 04.02.2016 arising out of order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short) dated 13.11.2014 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.
As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.6,83,886/- by the A.O. taking the shelter of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which is alleged to be wrongly sustained by the CIT(A).
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing.
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. A.Y. 2012-13 Page 2 of 4 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the assessee has not derived any exempt income during the year which fact has been reported consistently before all authorities. The question thus arise for determination is whether section 14A is applicable when the assessee has not actually received any exempt income during the year from assets capable of yielding taxable income. In this regard, we take note of the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which seeks to emphasize that all expenses pertaining to an exempt income is required to be disallowed notwithstanding the fact that no corresponding tax free income has been earned during the financial year. However, despite the circular, various Courts have held that Section 14A disallowance could not be kicked in where there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. IL&FS Energy Development Company Limited (2017) 84 Taxmann. Com 186 (Delhi) and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Limited (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) (SLP dismissed in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Limited (2018) 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC) have expressed a clear disagreement with CBDT Circular and held that where there is no exempt income in relevant year there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Corrtech Energy (P.) Limited (2014) 45 taxmann.com 116 (Guj.) and Pr.CIT vs. India Gelatine and Chemicals Limited (2016) 66 taxmann.com 356 (Guj.). In view of the judicial fiat available in this regard, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, we concur with the action of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
PRONOUNCED ON 21.10.2021 as per Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963.
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026