DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3557/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 November 2017AY 2012-134 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 held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee.

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 BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N. K. SAINI & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 26.10.2017Pronounced: 07.11.2017

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

1.

The appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 17/3/2016 passed by CIT(A)-30, New Delhi.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “ (a) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules ignoring the fact that the provisions of Section 14A are mandatory.

(b) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts is not appreciating the content of CBDT Circular No. 05/2014 dated 11/2/2014 which clarifies that Rule 8D read with Section 14A of he Act provides for disallowance of he expenditure even where tax payer in particular year, has not earned any exempt income

(c) That the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. (d) That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”

3.

During the year under consideration, search and seizure action u/s 132 took place on 30/3/2012. The return of income was filed on 30/9/2012 declaring loss of Rs.1,82,291/-. Consequently, the case of appellant for the Assessment Year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2012-13 was selected or scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) dated 5/8/2013, 9/9/2013 and 10/9/2013 were issued. In response to these notices, the AR of the appellant appeared before the A.O time to time and filed the relevant details. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed vide order dated 30/3/2015 at total income of Rs.2,69,37,430/- after making following addition:- (a) On account of disallowance u/s 14A

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the Jurisdictional High Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.

5.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the addition was rightly made.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. Therefore, Rule 8D will not be applicable in the present case. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Investment Ltd. reported at 371 ITR 23.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is clear from the records that that there was no exempt income attributable in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, applying Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not appropriate on part of Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) rightly held that no expenditure can be disallowed against Nil exempt income and this view is also supported by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and Chemnvest Investment Ltd. reported at 371 ITR 23.

8.

In result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th November, 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 →