ITO, WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAJAT FINCAP P.LTD, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4897/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 December 2017AY 2013-143 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 deletion of the disallowance. It was held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, citing jurisdictional High Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 43,09,477/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee, a non-banking company, had not earned any exempt income.

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

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, DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal &, Shri Lakshya, Advocates, Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.12.2017Pronounced: 21.12.2017

This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 26.05.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.43,09,477/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A read with Rule 8D.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non- banking company. No exempt income was earned. The Assessing Officer invoked section 14A of the Act. By applying Rule 8D, he made disallowance of expenses of Rs.43,09,477/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing that no exempt income was earned.

4.

Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, I find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del), wherein it has been held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014)

90CCH 081-Del-HC. In view of these binding precedents providing for not making any disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of any exempt 2 income, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, I uphold the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the open Court on 21.12.2017.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →