Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

378 ITR 33High Court2015#24 most cited

What is Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

1,569

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT · Section 14A disallowance · no exempt income · exempt dividend income · expenditure related to exempt income · Section 8D · Section 115JB · Income-tax Act 1961 · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

61 Taxmann.com 118234 Taxmann 761317 ITD 33281 CTR 447

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 8DSection 115JBSection 250Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14asection 36(1)(iii)section 115jbrevenue expendituresection 37(1)section 37section 36previous yearscrutiny assessmentsection 115

Judgments citing Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

…, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra). MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JULY 20, 2022” Therefore, respectf…

Growwell Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4381/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blegrowwell Mercantile Private Limited V. Acit-15(1)(2) 509-510 Navratan Premises Co-Op Society Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pd Mello Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400009 Pan: Aaccg1082F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani Department Represented By : Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 14A

…8D of I.T. Rules. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt Ltd., [372 ITR 97] and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33]. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance of ₹.1,22,39,954/-. Appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th May, 2024. (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) ACCOUNTAN…

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IT(TP)A No.298/Bang/2024 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.298/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. Wing A, Wing B & Wing C (Ground Floor to 6th Floor) Helios Business Park 150 Outer Ring Road DCIT Vs. Kadubeesanahalli Circle-3(1)(1) Bangalore 560 103 Bangalore Karnataka PAN NO : AACCG2435N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 2…

Il&Fs Maritime Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3558/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal Vora &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…Page 1 ITA No.3558/Mum/2023 IL & FS Maritime Infrastructure Company Ltd. Vs. The DCIT, 14(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3558/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) IL & FS Maritime Infrastructure Company Ltd, Plot, C-22, G Block, the IL & FS Financial Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 Vs. The DCIT, 14(1)(1) Room No. 432, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AABCI7029R Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Hetal Vora…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 971/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sides and perused the material on record. We find that it is undisputed fact that during the year under consideration the assessee has not earned any exempt income. After considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Investment Ltd. 378 ITR 33 we consider that no disallowance is to be made if no exempt income is received during the relevant previous year. On the similar proposition the ITAT Mumbai in various decision has also held that disallowance u/s 14A could not be made where the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Even the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s…

M/S Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 7900/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 32(1), 308, Level 3, Ceejay Ground Floor, Aayakar House, F Block Shiv Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 020 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 308, Level 3, Ceejay Air India Building, House, F Block Shiv Nariman Point, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 021 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(4) 308, Level 3, Ceejay R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, House, F Block Shiv Sagar Air India Building, Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai -400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sides and perused the material on record. We find that it is undisputed fact that during the year under consideration the assessee has not earned any exempt income. After considering the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Investment Ltd. 378 ITR 33 we consider that no disallowance is to be made if no exempt income is received during the relevant previous year. On the similar proposition the ITAT Mumbai in various decision has also held that disallowance u/s 14A could not be made where the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Even the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aczet Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3869/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14A

…ng this year. 21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the assessee has not received any exempt income from the investments made and as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33] held that if disallowance exceeds the exempt income the same should be restricted to the exempt income only. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2010 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue Page No. 17 ITA NOs. 3708 & 3707/MUM/2023 ITA NOs. 386…

Aczet Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3708/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14A

…ng this year. 21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the assessee has not received any exempt income from the investments made and as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33] held that if disallowance exceeds the exempt income the same should be restricted to the exempt income only. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2010 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue Page No. 17 ITA NOs. 3708 & 3707/MUM/2023 ITA NOs. 386…

Aczet Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3707/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14A

…ng this year. 21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the assessee has not received any exempt income from the investments made and as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33] held that if disallowance exceeds the exempt income the same should be restricted to the exempt income only. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2010 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue Page No. 17 ITA NOs. 3708 & 3707/MUM/2023 ITA NOs. 386…

Krishna Maruti Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 2388/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…elow have ignored the same and made disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D amounting to Rs.60,53,665/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT - (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has held that disallowance under section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income earned. Since the exempt income earned has already been offered for tax by the assessee, no disallowance in this regard is called for. Accordingly, following the above precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in fa…

Krishna Maruti Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 2387/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…elow have ignored the same and made disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D amounting to Rs.60,53,665/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT - (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has held that disallowance under section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income earned. Since the exempt income earned has already been offered for tax by the assessee, no disallowance in this regard is called for. Accordingly, following the above precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in fa…

The Dy CIT, Central Cir.-6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Ground no

ITA 1925/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 14A

…sallowance at Rs. 8.54 crores by applying the provisions of Rule 8D and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. The learned CIT(A), however, deleted the disallowance by placing reliance on the following case laws : a) Chem invest Ltd. Vs. CIT (378 ITR 33)(Del Trib) b) DCIT Vs. JSW Ltd. (116 taxman.com 565) (Mum Trib) c) CIT Vs. Corretech Energy (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 97 (Guj) Aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) on this issue, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 5. We heard the parties and perused the record. The undisputed fact remains that the assessee has not earned any ex…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Palchin Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose t. Kottaram (CIT
Section 14ASection 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2553/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT-3(2)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Palchin Real Estate Room No. 608, 6th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Road, Mumbai-400020. Centre, Minood Desai Marg Colaba, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCP4365P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. Shivram & Rahul Hakani Revenue by: Shri Solgy Jose t. Kottaram (CIT, DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date…

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 478/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra)" 12. Respectfully following the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 477/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra)" 12. Respectfully following the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,…

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1043/DEL/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra)" 12. Respectfully following the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,…

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1042/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra)" 12. Respectfully following the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,…

ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vihaan Networks Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4064/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit,Circle-26(2) Vs. Vihaan Networks Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-01, New Delhi – 110 028 Pan Aaccr2460C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…ome. He observed that dividend income arising from shares of foreign subsidiary companies is taxable under section 115BBD of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) extensively quoted from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd.(2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) wherein it is held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Relying on decisions (supra) the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 9.3 In our considered opinion, reliance of…

Soyuz Trading Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1130/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Soyuz Trading Co. Ltd (Now Merged With Concenate Advest Advisory (P) Ltd).…………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aagcs3371K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata……..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.68,65,91 7/- Made By The A.O. By Invoking The Provisions Of Sec. 14A R.W. Rule 8D Which Is Over & Above The Suo-Moto Disallowance Of Rs.9,39,667/- Made By The Assessee Itself.

Section 14ASection 250

…ry, the proposition was laid down that where the assessee has not derived any tax exempt income from investments, then no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of the Act. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the following case laws: Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28(Delhi) CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. [2015] 230 Taxman 63(Allahabad) PCIT vs. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. (2022) 138 taxmann.com 199 (Calcutta) 5.1 Further devolving upon the aforesaid proposition in relation to the disallowance of administration expenditure u/s 14A of the…

Lakozy Motors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2726/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…cifically submitted that during the year under consideration, no dividend income was earned by it out of the investments. The aforesaid fact has also not been disputed by the Revenue. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT: [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 v/s Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd., [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bom.), rendered similar findings and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on a similar issue. Since,…