DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPREME REALTY P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no tax-free income is earned by the assessee for the year. The facts were found to be similar to the Delite Enterprises case.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses of Rs. 2,74,56,810/- under Section 14A, considering them as incurred for earning exempt income. The assessee argued that no exempt income was earned during the year. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Delite Enterprises.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is to be made when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.
अपीलाथ� क� ओर से /By Appellant : Shri J. Saravanan, D.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent :Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 28.06.2016 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai, dated 12.03.2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 on following grounds:
A.Y. 09-10 [DCIT vs. Supreme Realty P. Ltd.] Page 2
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.2,74,56,810/- u/s.14A r.w.s. 8 D of the IT Rules 1962 by relying on the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Delite Enterprises is erroneous as in the case, in absence of wxmpt profit the Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not answer the question on merit.
1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in considering the case of Delite Enterprises where facts of the case are different from the facts of this case as the year involved in those appeals was for years when Rule D was not on statute.
1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Circular No.5 of 2014 issued by the CBDT wherein it is clarified that even where exempt income is not earned during the year however the investment is such where exempt income is likely to arise disallowance u/s.14A should be made."
The assessee is engaged in the business of investment in Real Estate. Now issue before us is with regards to disallowance of 2,74,56,810/- under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act out of expenses claimed in profit and loss account. Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act out of expenses claimed in P&L account considering them as expenses incurred for earning income exempt u/s.10(2A) of the Act.
2.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee and having considered the same, CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble A.Y. 09-10 [DCIT vs. Supreme Realty P. Ltd.] Page 3 High Court in case of CIT vs. Delite Enterprises in ITA No.110 of 2009, wherein it has been held that no disallowance u/s.14A is permitted if there is no tax free income earned by asessee for the year under consideration. Facts of M/s. Delite Enterprises (supra) are similar to the assessee’s case because assessee has not earned any tax free income nor is exemption u/s.10(2A) of the Act claimed by assessee. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of Revenue, so, facts being similar, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of CIT(A) who has decide the appeal in favour of assessee by following the ratio of M/s. Delite Enterprises (supra), same is upheld.
As a result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 30/06/2016 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई ।
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 →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026