M/S. NSL SUGARS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned. Since the AO had not clearly established if exempt income was earned, the issue was restored to the AO for examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee company claimed a loss for AY 2012-2013. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, leading to the present appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is justified when the assessee claims to have not earned any exempt income. The applicability of the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to Section 14A for 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(5)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
- Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT370 citing392 ITR 633 · 2017 · HC
- PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.354 citing448 ITR 674 · 2022 · HC
- PCIT v. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd.255 citing399 ITR 483 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- Pr. CIT v. Novell Software Development India (P.) Ltd.18 citing434 ITR 154 · 2021 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE
Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM
O R D E R
Per George George K, JM :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2012-2013.
The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act.
The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar. For the assessment year 2012-2013, the return of income was filed on 28.09.2012 by declaring a loss of Rs.51,74,48,709. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 31.03.2015. Subsequently, an order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act was passed on 28.03.2019 by making
. M/s.NSL Sugars Limited. disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.6,22,04,600.
Aggrieved by the order passed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 27.01.2023, rejected all the contentions raised and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has not received any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Consequently, there is no disallowance warranted u/s 14A of the I.T.Act. The learned AR submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 in and 598/Bang/2019 (order dated 31.07.2019) and also for the assessment year 2016-2017 in IT(TP)A No.262/Bang/2021 (order dated 08.04.2022).
The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The learned AR had contended that the assessee is not in receipt of any exempt income during the relevant assessment year and, hence, the disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act is not warranted. It is settled law for the . M/s.NSL Sugars Limited. relevant assessment year that when the assessee is not in receipt of any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act is warranted. In this context, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements:-
(i) Pr.CIT v. IL and FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 483 (Delhi) (ii) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) (iii) Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (2017) 392 ITR 633 (Mad.) (iv) Pr.CIT v. Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 434 ITR 154 (Karn.)
It is to be mentioned that Finance Act, 2022 had amended section 14A of the I.T.Act, whereby it is stated that irrespective whether the assessee is not in receipt of exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act can be made. However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd reported in (2022) 448 ITR 674 (Delhi) had held that the amendment is prospective and applies for and from assessment year 2022-2023 onwards. Since we are concerned with assessment year 2012-2013, the aforesaid amendment brought out by Finance Act, 2022 will not have application for the relevant assessment year.
However, on the facts on record, it is not clear whether the assessee had earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the files of the A.O. and we accordingly do so. The A.O. is directed to examine whether the assessee
. M/s.NSL Sugars Limited. has earned any exempt income for the relevant assessment year. In the event it is found that the assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act shall be made by the A.O. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 19th day of April, 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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026