ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAINIK MINING & ALLIED SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6877/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 September 2017AY 2010-114 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 no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. Therefore, the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee made investments but earned no exempt income during the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which the CIT(A) deleted.

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?

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 : B : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms Rachna Singh, CIT, DR
Hearing: 14.09.2017Pronounced: 15.09.2017

ORDER PER BENCH: These three appeals by the Revenue and equal number of Cross Objections by the assessee relate to the assessment years 2009-10, 2010- 11 and 2011-12. Since all the appeals involve a solitary issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereianfter also called `the Act’), we proceed to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

The facts relating to assessment year 2009-10 are that the assessee made certain investment in shares etc. No disallowance was offered u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. After considering the assessee’s objections, the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) at ½% of the average value of investments. This resulted into an addition of Rs.10,81,627/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by noticing that the assessee had not earned any exempt dividend to 6878/Del/2015 CO No.128 to 130/Del/2016 income during the year. The Revenue is aggrieved against such deletion.

3.

Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during all the three years under consideration. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del), has 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 income, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, we countenance the view taken by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the other two years under consideration are mutatis mutandis similar to the A.Y. 2009-10 discussed above inasmuch as in none of these years, to 6878/Del/2015 CO No.128 to 130/Del/2016 the assessee earned any exempt income. We, ergo, uphold the impugned orders for these years as well.

5.

The Cross Objections filed by the assessee for all the three years are stated to be in support of the impugned orders.

6.

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2017.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →