JAMIPOL LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 1 JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that where an assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. Following various High Court decisions, the disallowance was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee argued that no exempt income was earned and that the amendment relied upon by the Assessing Officer was prospective. The Assessing Officer had made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is applicable when no exempt income is earned by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no. CIT(A), Jamshedpur/10181/2019-20 dated 18.04.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Rajiv R Mittal, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandipan Kha, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that at the outset, the assessee has not earned any exempt income. It was further submitted that the amendment of 2022 which has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer is prospective in nature. It was the submission that it was held in various decision including the decision of the Hon’ble
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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 →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026