DCIT CIRCLE-14()(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASSET AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on various High Court judgments and the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court on this issue.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 1,59,65,004 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income is earned by the assessee. Interpretation of legislative intent regarding actual receipt of exempt income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)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. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.444 citing248 Taxmann 55 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.421 citing95 Taxmann.com 250 · 2018 · SC
- CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.378 citing319 ITR 204 · 2009 · HC
- Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT370 citing77 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · HC
- PCIT v. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd.255 citing84 Taxmann.com 186 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd.179 citing230 Taxmann 63 · 2015 · HC
- CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc.145 citing226 Taxmann 45 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd.138 citing57 Taxmann.com 28 · 2015 · HC
- Voltmap Transformer (P) Ltd. v. CIT5 citing73 Taxmann.com 233 · 2016
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2013-14. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (the Act). Though the case was fixed for hearing on 10.09.2020, neither the assessee nor its Authorised Representative appeared before the Tribunal on the above date. As there is non-compliance by the assessee, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal after examining the materials available on record and after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).
M/s. Asset Auto India Pvt. Ltd.
The grounds of appeal
filed by the revenue read as under: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, amounting to Rs.1,59,65,004/-?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D by relying upon the judicial precedents which did not consider in right perspective, the legislative intent contained in Circular 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 which clearly lays down that for making the above disallowance, actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant A. Y. is not necessary"? 3. "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14 on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.55,12,590/- and carried forward business loss of Rs.5,55,59,262/- . During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance of Rs.1,59,65,004/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1963 (the Rules).
4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Learned CIT (A). Since no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the above addition of Rs.1,59,65,004/- with the following observations: -
M/s. Asset Auto India Pvt. Ltd.
........... Since no exempt income has been earned by the appellant during the year, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the IT Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 and Pr. CIT Vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd., [2017] 84 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi) where it has been held that there can be no disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of exempt income. Similar view has been taken in Redington (India) Ltd., v. Addl. CIT [2017] 392 ITR 633/77taxmann.com 257 (Mad.), CIT v. Lakhani 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 63/55taxmann.com 262 (All.) and Quantum Advisors (P.) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 233 (Mumbai –Trib.) Hon’ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP against decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221/248 Taxman 55 (Mad.) wherein it was held that that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. [CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd., [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC)].
The Ld. DR relies on CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 and supports the order passed by the AO.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The fact remains that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Holcim India (P.) Ltd (supra).; IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra), where it has been held
M/s. Asset Auto India Pvt. Ltd. that there can be no disallowance under section 14A in the absence of exempt income.
The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly referred to the SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd., [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad.), wherein it is held that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year.
In view of the above position of the law, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amen...
- ACIT, Circle 1(1), Trivandrum vs Hll Lifecare Ltd, TrivandrumCochin9 Dec 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal followed the decision of its co-ordinate bench and...
- ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd…Mumbai17 Jun 2022Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Con...
- ACIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs M/S.Netizen Engineering Private Limited…Mumbai14 Oct 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc. and 3 other authorities
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 decisi...
- Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs M/S.Kausthubha Project Private Limited…Bangalore17 Nov 2017Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is applicable only when exempt income is earned. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding di...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026