DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNISYS SOFTWARE AND HOLDING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following High Court precedents that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is actually earned by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 70,70,394/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee appealed, arguing no exempt income was earned. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on High Court decisions.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.
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.
- Raj Kumar Hukam Chandji v. CIT6 citing78 ITR 33 · 1970
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata dated 12.03.2018 and the solitary ground raised therein by the Revenue reads as under:- “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to Rs.70,70,394/- whereas the AO has made the disallowance as per section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Act & Rules”.
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of making investment in shares and securities, giving loans and advances and dealing in Software & Hardware. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 10.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.88,46,060/-. In the assessment completed under M/s. Unisys Software And Holding Industries Limited section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,59,16,449/- after making an addition of Rs.70,70,394/- on account of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 3 of his impugned order:- “3. The main ground of the appeal is regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.70,70,394/- u/s 14A. The Authorized Representative of the appellant in his written submissions has argued that no exempted income has been earned by the appellant during the previous year and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A should be made. The Authorized Representative of the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 88 of 2014, vide order dated 05.05.2014 for the proposition that disallowance u/s.14A should not be made if no exempted income has been earned. Moreover, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited has also held that no disallowance u/s. 14A can be made if no exempted income has been earned. Respectfully following the above decision, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted”.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing fixed this case today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The ld. D.R, however, has fairly and frankly conceded that the solitary issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue relating to disallowance under section 14A is squarely covered, inter alia, by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest M/s. Unisys Software And Holding Industries Limited Limited (78 ITR 033), wherein it was held that if there is no exempt income actually earned by the assesese during the relevant year, no disallowance under section 14A on account of expenses incurred in relation to such exempt income can be made under section 14A. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited (supra) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT –vs. - REI Agro Limited in G.A. No. 3581 of 2013 dated 09.04.2014 (ITAT No. 220 of 2013), we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on January 01, 2019.
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 →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026