INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S AXISCADES AEROSPACE & TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 529/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 July 2019AY 2014-152 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was noted that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year, and therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition made under Section 14A. The addition was based on the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses related to earning exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the assessment year.

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(1)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, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 03.07.2019Pronounced: 05.07.2019

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1, Bangalore dated 04.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds raised

by the revenue are as under. “1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,28,39,617/- made by the AO u/s 14A of IT Act 1961 read with Rule 8D of IT Rules 1962 on the basis that no exempt income was earned during the year.

3. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal.”

Page 2 of 2 3. The ld. DR of revenue supported the assessment order whereas it is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per para no. 5.1.1 of his order, it is noted by CIT(A) that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the present year and therefore, no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A of IT Act. He further pointed out that ld. CIT(A) has followed various Tribunal orders as noted by him in this para where the Tribunal followed the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). He submitted that under these facts and legal position, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. Since the ld. DR of revenue could not show that the assessee has earned any exempt income in the present year, the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →