GATEWAY IMPEX PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The issue of set-off of capital loss was remanded for examination by the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning disallowance under Section 14A and the non-set off of brought forward short-term capital loss. The primary issue was the disallowance of Rs. 2,43,88,100 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is leviable when no exempt income is earned, and whether brought forward short-term capital loss can be set off against short-term capital gain.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 citing61 Taxmann.com 118 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gateway Impex Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward 10 (1), 108/1, 2nd Floor, Madangir, Delhi. Delhi – 110 062. (PAN : AAACG6562C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.11.2023 Date of Order : 22.11.2023
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 17.01.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-
“1. The order of the ld. CIT (A) is wrong on facts and bad in law, and therefore, is illegal. 2. i) The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of ld. AO of disallowing a sum of Rs.2,43,88,100/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D.
The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,38,537/- being the suo moto disallowance by the appellant u/s 14A to the income of the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of ld. AO for not set off brought forward short term capital loss of Rs.1,29,72,640/- with short term capital gain. 4. The ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the said order in haste without giving adequate opportunity of hearing.”
At the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall be pressing ground no.2(i) and ground no.3.
As regards Ground No.2 (i) : the grievance is that AO disallowed a sum of Rs.2,43,88,100/- under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In this regard, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee had not earned any exempt income. So, he pleaded that there cannot be any disallowance on the touchstone of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi). He further submitted that the fact that assessee had not earned any exempt income is arising out of the order of AO wherein AO has held that though assessee has not earned any exempt income but the disallowance under Rule 8D has to be made.
Ld. DR for the Revenue did not dispute the proposition that assessee has not earned any exempt income and the issue is covered by the decision
Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT.
Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.
As regards Ground No.3 : The same is raised against the action of the AO for not setting off brought forward short term capital loss of Rs.1,29,72,640/- with short term capital gain. We note that it is a consequential ground and AO will examine the same and pass order as per law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of November, 2023.
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. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026