ACIT-8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.NETIZEN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6584/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 October 2020AY 2013-143 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 Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when the assessee has not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year. Relying on various case laws, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer had disallowed a significant amount, which the CIT(A) had deleted.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of any exempt income 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(8)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, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI M.BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.DR
Hearing: 13/10/2020Pronounced: 14/10/2020

PER S.S.GODARA (J.M): This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y.2013-14 arises from Mumbai’s order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, in case No.CIT(A)-14/IT-45/16-17 dated 26/07/2018, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as Act].

2.

None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ms. Kavitha P. Koushik, Learned senior departmental representative appearing at the Revenue’s behest. She vehemently contended that the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting section 14A r.w.Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.3,21,06,151/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated 17/03/2016. We notice

1.

M/s. Netizen Engineering Pvt.Ltd. at the outset that this assessee has not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year. Case law CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 txmann.com 28 and Pr.CIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 186, Redington (india) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 392 ITR 633/77 taxmann.com 257 (Mad.), CIT v. Lakhan I Marketing Inc. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 257/226 Taxman 45 (Mag.), CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204, CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. [2015] 230 Taxman 63/55 taxmann.com 262 (All.) and Quantum Advisors (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 233 (Mumbai-Trib.) and CIT v. Chetinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221/248 Taxman 55 (Mad.), CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC)] hold that the impugned disallowances provision does not come into play in absence of any exempt income derived in relevant previous year. There is no change stated at the Revenue’s behest in the preceding legal position. We therefore affirm the CIT(A) action deleting the impugned disallowance for this precise reason.

3.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 14/10 /2020

Sd/- Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 14/10/2020 Thirumalesh, sr.ps

M/s. Netizen Engineering Pvt.Ltd.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →