PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD.

Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. The delay is, accordingly, condoned. 5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 266/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs.5,75,90,145/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] given the fact that the respondent/assessee has not earned any exempt income. 8.1 Mr Kumar cannot but accept, that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered inter alia by the following judgments: (i) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (ii) CIT v. M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) (iii) Judgment dated 03.05.2023 passed in ITA 250/2023 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 4 Delhi v. M/s Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd. 9. Insofar as the Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.06.2023 16:23:16 Signature Not Verified

According to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.