TEAMLEASE DIGITAL PVT LTD.,SOUTH BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is not retrospective. Furthermore, it affirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A is required when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 44,41,305/- under Section 14A for investments made by the assessee, despite the assessee claiming no exempt income was received. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, considering a recent amendment to Section 14A to be retrospective.
What were the issues?
Whether the amendment to Section 14A is retrospective, and whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible without 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(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
- PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.354 citing448 ITR 674 · 2022 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM)
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 5.4.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2018-19. The only issue urged in this appeal is related to the disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act.
We heard the parties and perused the record. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has invested a sum of Rs. 54.10 crores in the following companies:-
a) M/s. Keystone Business Solutions P. Ltd. : Rs. 8.20 crores b) M/s. Evolve Technologies & Services P. Ltd. : Rs. 45.90 crores Rs. 54.10 crores
2 Teamlease Digital Pvt. Ltd.
The AO noticed that the assessee did not make any disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Even though the assessee submitted that it has not received any exempt income and hence no disallowance is called for, yet the Assessing Officer took the view that the disallowance has to be made under section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, he computed the disallowance at Rs.44,41,305/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the amendment made in section 14A of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 1.4.2022 is retrospective in nature and shall apply to the year under consideration. The above said amendment mentioned that the provisions of section 14A of the Act shall apply and shall be deemed to have been always applied where exempt income has not accrued or arisen or has not received during the previous years. The learned CIT(A) also took support of the decision rendered by the Guwahati Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Williamson Finance Services Limited (ITA No. 159/Gau/ 2019 dated 6.7.2022) to vindicate his decision. The assessee is aggrieved.
The Ld A.R submitted that the amendment made in sec.14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022 will take effective from 1.4.2022 only and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. She submitted that it was so held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (448 ITR 674). The Learned AR further submitted that no disallowance under section 14A is required to be made when the assessee has not received any exempt income.
We heard learned DR and perused the record. We notice that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra) that the amendment in section 14A of the Act cannot have retrospective operation. In view of the above said decision rendered by a higher judicial forum, the learned CIT(A) could not have placed his reliance
3 Teamlease Digital Pvt. Ltd. on the decision rendered by Guwahati bench of ITAT. Accordingly, his decision is liable to be set aside.
Further, uncontroverted fact in this case is that the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 80 taxman.com 221 (Mad) has held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act shall be made when the assessee has not received any exempt dividend income. Hence, in the facts of the present case, no disallowance u/s 14A is called for. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance under section 14A of the Act.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 7.2.2024.
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026