ITO, WARD- 3(4), NEW DELHI vs. ATHENA ENERGY VENTURES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6328/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 February 2021AY 2014-153 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 upheld the deletion of the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had not earned any exempt income. The decision was based on jurisdictional High Court and Apex Court rulings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee had submitted that no dividend income was earned and no expenditure was incurred towards exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted 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(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, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & DR. B. R. R. KUMAR

Hearing: 17.02.2021Pronounced: 17.02.2021

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order dated 07/08/2017 passed by CIT(A)-1, New Delhi for assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting addition of Rs. 3,14,71,557/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D.”

3. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee, hence we are taking the submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A).

4.

The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not just and proper in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D and relied upon the assessment order.

5.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is a submission at Page 3 Para 1.1 made by the assessee before the CIT(A) which clearly set out that assessee has not earned any dividend income. In-fact, the submissions before the Assessing Officer was also that there was no exempt income earned during the year and no expenditure was incurred during the year towards exempt income. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 61 Taxman.com 118 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Holcim Ltd. 57 Taxman 28. The CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and there is no need to interfere with the same in light of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. In fact, the issue is covered by the decision of the Apex Court decision in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →