ARTHADA COMMERCE PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 936/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court, which held that the explanation to Section 14A is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 12,82,633/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A. The assessee contended that no tax-exempt income was earned, and thus no disallowance should be attracted.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the applicability of the explanation to Section 14A, specifically whether it was retrospective or prospective, in relation to disallowance of expenditure when no exempt income was earned.

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(3)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, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : February 02, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.08.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The sole grievance raised by the assessee in this appeal is relating to the action of the ld. CIT(A) in disallowing a sum of Rs.12,82,633/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section u/s 14A of the Act.

3.

The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee did not earn any tax exempt income during the year under consideration. He in this respect has relied upon the following case laws: Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del).

1.

Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arthada Commerce Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in and ITA no. 299/2014; Judgment dt. 5-9-2014 CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. [2015] 230 Taxman 63 CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. (G.A. No. 2122 of 2014) dt. 11/06/2018 In these case laws, Hon’ble High Courts have been unanimous to hold that where the assessee has not derived any tax exempt income from investments, then no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of the Act.

4.

The ld. D/R, however, has relied upon the newly inserted explanations to Section 14A of the Act, which is extracted for the sake of ready reference:- “14A. [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, for the purposes of] computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.] ************************ *********************** [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income.]”

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →