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

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

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.