M/S HINDUSTAN THERMALPROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible. This position is well-settled by various High Court decisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee made investments in shares amounting to Rs. 6.47 crores. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 1,76,40,848/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee argued that no disallowance should be made as no exempt income was received during the year.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible 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
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.579 citing372 ITR 97 · 2014 · HC
- Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO338 citing121 ITD 318 · 2009 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] -33, New Delhi dated 12.01.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.
The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962.
Facts emanating from the assessment order show that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made investment in shares amounting to Rs. 6.47 crores. The Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D squarely apply and invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance at Rs. 1,76,40,848/-.
The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that during the year under consideration, the assessee has not received any exempt income and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made u/s 14A of the Act.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that during the year the assessee did not earn any exempt income from tax. Since there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. This issue is by now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Cheminvest Ltd 121 ITD 318 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Same view is taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd 372 ITR 97. In view of the above, the impugned disallowance is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2020.
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026