ARYADOOT TRANSPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that High Court decisions suggest no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income is earned. However, due to the conflicting factual position, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for factual examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed that no disallowance under Section 14A was permissible as no exempt income was earned. However, the Assessing Officer noted that dividend income was received, contradicting the assessee's submission.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income is earned, and the factual determination of exempt income 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.
- Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT1,569 citing378 ITR 33 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT370 citing77 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya
O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 28.04.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal
read as under:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,05,199/- being 0.5% of average investment of Rs.8,30,39,847/- without appreciating the fact that it has been held in the case of M/s.Magna Publishing Co.Ltd. v. ITO in and also in the case of ACIT vs. Punjab state Coop & Marketing Fed Ltd. in ITA Nos.548/Chd/2011 that no disallowances under section 14A of the Act can be made where no exempt income is earned.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amplify, modify, reframe or delete any of the aforesaid grounds at or before the hearing.”
. M/s.Aryadoot Transport Pvt.Ltd.
At the outset, in the case the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee has not earned / received any exempt income during the concerned financial year, hence the learned Counsel pleaded that no disallowance u/s 14A should be done. For this proposition, the learned Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon several decisions including that of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [(2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi)] and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 257 (Madras)]. In the light of these case laws, the learned Counsel pleaded that no disallowance u/s 14A is permissible.
Upon careful consideration, I note that the authorities below have relied upon a Special Bench case of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. However, the same stands reversed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In the above decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Madras High Court have held that no disallowance u/s 14A is permissible as there is no exempt income earned. However, I note that in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has observed that dividend income has been received by the assessee. This is quite contrary to the submission of the learned Counsel of the assessee. Hence in the interest of justice, I remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall factually examine whether any exempt income has been earned or not. If any exempt income have been earned, then as per the ratio emanating from the above High Court decisions, no disallowance u/s 14A needs to be done.
. M/s.Aryadoot Transport Pvt.Ltd. 5. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026