LAXMIWAN SHOPPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A could be made, even by applying Rule 8D. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore deleted.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 5,80,953/- under Section 14A for expenses incurred in earning exempt income. The assessee had made investments in equities but claimed no exempt income was earned, offering a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,46,032/-.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT1,569 citing378 ITR 33 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH, “SMC” AT KOLKATA
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]
ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Kolkata dated 11.07.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
The only grievance of the assessee against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 5,80,953/- u/s 14A of the Act.
Brief facts of the case is that the AO while going through the balance sheet noted that the assessee has made investment in equities and has failed to add proportionate expenditure incurred for earning exempt income as per section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
When the AO gave show cause to the assessee as to why disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should not be resorted to, the AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee did not earning any exempt income this year and, therefore, the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 1,46,032/- should be accepted and no disallowance by applying Rule 8D should be made against the assessee. However, the AO did not agree and he took note of the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 and made a disallowance of half percentage of average investment which comes to Rs. 5,80,953/- which was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is before us.
M/s. Laxmiwan Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. AY- 2013-14
I have heard both the sides and perused the records. I note that the assessee has not earned any exempt income in this assessment year, however suo-moto disallowed Rs 1,46,032/-and, therefore, since there was no exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act resorted to by applying mechanically Rule 8D for that I rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT 378 ITR 33 and delete the disallowance of Rs. 5,80,953/-.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15 May, 2019 Sd/- (Aby. T. Varkey) Judicial Member Dated : 15 May, 2019 Biswajit (Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – M/s. Laxmiwan Shoppers Private Limited, C/o. RSVPC & Company, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6th Floor, Kolkata – 700 017. 2 Respondent – ITO, Ward-6(4), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026