DCIT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAJESTIC INFRACON P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3309/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 March 2021AY 2013-144 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made if there is no exempt income earned. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income. The Assessing Officer had disallowed expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, even though the assessee claimed no exempt income was earned.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D 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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: DR प्रत्मथी की ओय े/
Hearing: 23.03.2021Pronounced: 23.03.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 3309/Mum/2019
ITA No. 3310/Mum/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals of Revenue are arising out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-21, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)],

2.

The only common issue in these appeals of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). For this, Revenue has raised the identical worded grounds in both the years except the quantum, hence, we will take the grounds as raised in AY 2013-14 in ITA No. 3309/Mum/2018. The relevant grounds read as under: -

1.

“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,75,88,914/- made by the AO u/s.14A under Rule 8D relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemvest Ltd, without appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Decision in the case of M/s. Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs. CIT?".

3.

We have heard the learned CIT DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee before the Assessing Officer has claimed vide letter dated 21.06.2016 that the assessee has not earned any exempt income and hence, therefore there is no disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules at Rs. 5,79,57,849/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules at Rs. 2,96,31,065/- and thereby, the total disallowance made was Rs.8,75,88,914/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), deleted the addition by stating that once, there is no exempt income no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rules 8D of the Rules.

Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal.

4.

We noted that now this issue is settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC), wherein it is held that once, there is no exempt

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →