Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, dated 01.03.2017.
Following grounds have been raised by the revenue: “1 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,89,28,916/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 wherein it issued a clarification that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for disallowance of expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.”
2 Richmond Park Property Management Service P. Ltd. 3. At the outset, the uncontroverted facts brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee has neither earned any exempt income nor debited an expenses in the P&L account pertaining to expenditure.
The revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal owing to CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014.
The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in dated 05.09.2014, Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del) and Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 86 (Del) has categorically held that earning of exempt income is a pre- requisite for disallowance u/s 14A.
Respectfully following the ratio of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hereby hold that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for in the instant case.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/11/2020.