INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SUPREME REALTY PVT LTD , ANAND KANEKAR MG MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2068/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)1 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that disallowance under section 14A does not apply when there is no exempt income, relying on the Bombay High Court decision. It further clarified that the Explanation to section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective, thus not applicable to the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16. The core contention was whether disallowance under section 14A could be made even in the absence of exempt income, considering the Explanation added to section 14A. The Revenue conceded that the assessee did not derive any exempt income in these assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income, and whether the Explanation to Section 14A applies retrospectively to AY 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR &, Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR

Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1), M/s. Supreme Realty Room No.554, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Gr Floor, HDIL Tower, Vs. New Marine Lines, Anant Kanekar Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai Maharashtra-400051 PAN: AALCS0761J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR & Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR. Date of Hearing : 18 . 07 . 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24 . 07 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These Revenue’s twin appeals & 2068/M/2024, for assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi’s as many DIN & order No.ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061253799(1) & No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1061253141(1) both dated 21.02.2024, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

The Revenue’s former lead appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following sole substantive ground:

“Whether on the facts & circumstances of case and in law the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s.14A ignoring the fact that the disallowance has to be made even if there is no exempt income during the year considering the Explanation added to section 14A which makes it mandatory even when there is no exempt income and language of Explanation makes it clear that it is applicable retrospectively.”

4.

The Revenue’s latter appeal also appears to be raising the very substantive grievance since the only exception herein is that of the quantum of section 14A r.w.Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.1,84,27,407/-.

5.

We proceed further and put the Revenue to the clinching question of the quantum of assessee’s exempt income derived in both these assessment years. The Revenue is indeed more than fair; that the assessee has not derived any such exempt income in these twin assessment years. That being the case, we find no merit in the Revenue’s instant identical sole Ltd. (2017) 85 taxmann.com 13 (Bom.) that the impugned disallowance does not apply in absence of any exempt income.

6.

The Revenue at this stage quotes the statutory Explanation to section 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022. This Revenue’s last argument is found to be devoid of any merit in light of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Keti Construction Ltd. (2024) 162 taxmann.com 278 (MP) and PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022)

144 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi) that the same carries only prospective than retrospective effect. We reiterate that our instant adjudication is confined to 2014-15 and 2015-16 only.

We accordingly reject the Revenue’s instant identical sole substantive grievance in very terms.

7.

These Revenue’s twin appeals i.e. & 2070/M/2024 are dismissed in above terms. A cop of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →