Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

…tion, we find that the assessee did not earn any exempt income and, accordingly, claimed no exemption under section 10(34) of the Act while filing its return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. We further find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd., reported in [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bom.), rendered similar findings and 18 Transworld Furtichem Private Limited (A…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

…tion, we find that the assessee did not earn any exempt income and, accordingly, claimed no exemption under section 10(34) of the Act while filing its return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. We further find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd., reported in [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bom.), rendered similar findings and 18 Transworld Furtichem Private Limited (A…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

…tion, we find that the assessee did not earn any exempt income and, accordingly, claimed no exemption under section 10(34) of the Act while filing its return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. We further find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd., reported in [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bom.), rendered similar findings and 18 Transworld Furtichem Private Limited (A…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

…tion, we find that the assessee did not earn any exempt income and, accordingly, claimed no exemption under section 10(34) of the Act while filing its return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. We further find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd., reported in [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bom.), rendered similar findings and 18 Transworld Furtichem Private Limited (A…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

…gment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221, as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33, wherein it has been held that where no exempt income is earned during the relevant previous year, no disallowance under section 14A can be made. The assessee further submitted that the identical issue had already been decided in its favour by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12.…

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

…is dismissed." 10.9 The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476) held that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income, a view also supported by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33). The Revenue's SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 08/10/2018. Based on legal precedent's, disallowance u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D is restricted to the exempt income claimed i.e. Rs 7,46,429/-. The ground of appeal i…

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…l is dismissed." 10.9 The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476) held that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income, a view also supported by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33). The Revenue's SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 08/10/2018. Based on legal precedent's, disallowance u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D is restricted to the exempt income claimed i.e. Rs 7,46,429/-. The ground of appeal i…

ACIT-6(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR POWER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Essar Power Ltd., 11th Floor, Essar House 11, K K Marg Mahalaxmi Mumbai- 400 034 PAN/GIR No.AAACE0895J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tarang Mehta Revenue by Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 19/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), N…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

…, following Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman case of Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman case of Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33, we uphold the plea of the assessee that n 761/378 ITR 33, we uphold the plea of the assessee that n 761/378 ITR 33, we uphold the plea of the assessee that no disallowance under section 14A was and in the circumstances of the case. The plea of the under section 14A was and in the circumstances of the case. The plea of the under section 14A was an…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT 7120161 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P) Ltd (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi). Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India (P.) Ltd. (supra) reads:- "8. The decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) is significant and does answer the question in issue. This decision does not support the Revenue as the Assessing…