M/S. EXMARK PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 695/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 February 2023AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision that the explanation to Section 14A is prospective. Since the assessee did not earn tax-exempt income, the disallowance was not attracted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 14,42,054/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A. The assessee argued that no tax-exempt income was earned during the year.

What were the issues?

Whether the explanation to Section 14A is retrospective or prospective, and if disallowance under Section 14A is attracted when no tax-exempt income is earned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : February 23, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.11.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The sole grievance raised by the assessee in this appeal is relating to the action of the ld. CIT(A) in disallowing a sum of Rs.14,42,054/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section u/s 14A of the Act. Assessment year: 2015-16 M/s Exmark Projects Pvt. Ltd 3. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee did not earn any tax exempt income during the year under consideration. He, in this respect, has relied upon the following case laws:

1.

Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in and ITA no. 299/2014; Judgment dt. 5-9-2014 CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. [2015] 230 Taxman 63 CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. (G.A. No. 2122 of 2014) dt. 11/06/2018 In these case laws, Hon’ble High Courts have been unanimous to hold that where the assessee has not derived any tax exempt income from investments, then no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of the Act.

4.

The ld. D/R, however, has relied upon the newly inserted explanations to Section 14A of the Act, which is extracted for the sake of ready reference:- “14A. [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, for the purposes of] computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.] ************************ *********************** [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income.]”

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →