M/S RATHNA HOLDING COMPANY PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI
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 Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following the jurisdictional High Court decisions, the appeal was allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a building promoter, had investments in equity and subsidiary companies. The Assessing Officer disallowed a significant amount under Section 14A, invoking Rule 8D, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether Section 14A can be invoked for disallowance of expenses 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(2)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.
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.444 citing80 Taxmann.com 221 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT370 citing77 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Chennai, in dated 31.03.2017 for assessment year 2014-15.
2 -: 2. The appeal is filed after a delay of 236 days. It is submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) was received by then Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Shri C. Snathanam, an In-Charge of the tax matters, who was resigned on 12.06.2017 and had not handed over the above order for further appeal. It was only during receipt of the giving effect order for assessment year 2015-16 with respect to carry forward of losses that the issue was brought to light.
Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 236 days. The delay in filing the appeal is not deliberate or wanton and hence, the Ld. AR pleaded for condonation of delay in the interests of justice. We heard the rival submissions and condone the delay.
M/s. Rathna Holding Company Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, is a building promoter. While making the assessment for assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company had made investments in equity instruments and in subsidiary companies at Rs. 1,27,33,79,496/- as on 31.03.2014 as against Rs. 41,70,39,640/- stood as on 31.03.2013. Invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii) & (iii), the AO disallowed Rs. 8,82,27,938/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 in & 2221/Mds/2014 and ITA Nos. 2051, 2055 & 2056/Mds/2014, wherein the tribunal relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt.
3 -: Leena Ramachandran, Karnataka High Court in the case of Pradeep Kar vs ACIT, upheld the order passed by the AO, dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal. The Ld. AR relying on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington India Ltd. vs ACIT [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 257 (Mad) and the CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221 (Mad), TCA No 24 of 2017, pleaded that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income, section 14A cannot be invoked. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We heard the rival submissions. Since, the assessee has not earned any exempt income, following the Jurisdictional High Court decisions, supra, we hold that section 14A cannot be invoked and hence, allow the assessee’s appeal.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 2018 at Chennai.
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 →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026