TARINI STEEL COMPANY LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 13/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 November 2020AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. Following various High Court precedents, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed no disallowance under Section 14A as it earned no dividend income from its investments. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 2,13,600/-. This disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee.

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(2)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, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan

Tarini Steel Company Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 101, General Block, MIDC, Circle-10, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune Pune 411 026 PAN : AAACT6346H Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan Date of hearing 21-12-2020 Date of pronouncement 21-12-2020 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-6, Pune on 29-09-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.2,13,600/- made u/s.14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’).

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring total income of Rs.5.38 crore. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made investments in shares of Zion Steel Ltd. and Madhur Engineers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.4,27,20,000/-. On being called upon to explain as to why no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act was offered, the assessee submitted that no dividend income was earned on these investments. Not Convinced, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance u/s.14A at Rs.2,13,600/-, which came to be countenanced in the first appeal.

4.

We have heard the ld. DR through virtual court and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. It is seen as an admitted position that the assessee did not earn any exempt income from the shares. Despite that, the AO has computed the disallowance u/s.14A to the tune of Rs.2,13,600/-. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) has held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC. More recently the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom) has held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. As the assessee in the instant case did not admittedly earn any exempt income, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that no disallowance was called for. The impugned order is overturned and the sustenance of the disallowance is deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st December, 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 21st December, 2020 सतीश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2.

3. The CIT(A)-6, Pune 4. The Pr.CIT-5, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे 5. “बी” / DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 21-12-2020 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 21-12-2020 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →