M/S. BLUEDIAMOND TRACOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), , KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned by the assessee. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee invested in equity shares and incurred administrative costs for maintaining investments. The Assessing Officer disallowed these costs under Section 14A, even though no exempt income was earned.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- PCIT v. Oil Industry Development Board120 citing103 Taxmann.com 326 · 2019 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Nashik, dated 24.06.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2014-2015.
The only issue involved in the present appeal of the assessee is with regard to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the Act when there was no exempt income earned by the assessee.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had made investment in equity shares. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that if the assessee has no exempt income during the year but there must be administrative cost for maintaining the investment. It was also observed by the Assessing Officer that from the investment in shares the assessee will get only dividend which is exempt to tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 14A read with rule 8D and disallowed the investment made by the assessee. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. AR submitted that the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2014-2015. It was submitted that the audit report of the assessee clearly shows that no exempt income had been earned by the assessee. It was further submitted that as no income has been earned by the assessee. Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer had made disallowance applying ½ % of average value of investment. Ld. AR also submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 326 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble supreme Court has categorically held that where no exempt income was earned in the relevant assessment year by the assessee, Section 14A could not be invoked.
I have considered the rival submissions of ld. AR and perused the assessment order as well as the appellate order. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer also does not dispute the fact that the assessee has not claimed any exempt income during the impugned assessment year. This being so, respectfully following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chittinad Logistics Pvt.
Ltd., referred to supra, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) stands deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Available Finance Limited, Indore vs DCIT 1(1), IndoreIndore27 Mar 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Oil Industry Development Board
The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that investment in shares generated exempted income was factually incorrect. Since no exempt income was earned during the year, Section 14A of the Act is not applicable. The ad...
- ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs Penna Cement Industries Limited, HyderabadHyderabad21 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Oil Industry Development Board
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year. It also upheld the deletion of the disallowance of Section 80G deduc...
- Apex Urban Infrastructure Private Limited… vs DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), HyderabadHyderabad13 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Oil Industry Development Board
The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed payment of service tax is compensatory in nature and allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Regarding disallowance under section 14A, the Tribunal noted t...
- Saurashtra Cement Limited, Porbandar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…Rajkot8 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Oil Industry Development Board
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The issues raised by the PCIT regarding disallowance under section 14A and section 36(1)(iii) were not sustainab...
- Sahajanand Technologies Private Limted… vs The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat.Surat23 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Oil Industry Development Board
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of Section 35(2AB) should have been restricted to Rs. 12,42,434/-, being 50% of the unallowed revenue expenditure. The remaining revenue expenditure of Rs. 24,84,868/- w...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Sujit Paswan @ Sujit Pasman vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026