DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CAPITAL FIRST LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5219/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2019AY 2014-153 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 order of the CIT(A), stating that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is justified. This decision followed precedents from the Mumbai ITAT, Delhi High Court, and Bombay High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that no disallowance should be made as no exempt income was earned.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan
Hearing: 15.11.2018Pronounced: 30.01.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 02.05.2018 for the A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15.

2 & 5219/MUM/2017 M/s. Capital First Ltd., 2. In both these appeals the Revenue challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules.

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in both the years the assessee has not earned any exempt income and therefore, there is no justification in applying the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules and disallowing the expenses attributable for earning exempt income.

4.

Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the Authorities below. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 and therefore, no disallowance should be made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Morgan Stanley India Securities Ltd., in ITA.No. 114/Mum/2013. and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of cheminvest v. CIT in ITA.No. 749 of 2014, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w. Rules 8D of I.T. Rules. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd in ITA.No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2016 had taken a similar view that when

3 & 5219/MUM/2017 M/s. Capital First Ltd., there is no exempt income there should not be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

6.

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th January, 2019

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →