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

Arthada Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-13(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the stands allowed

ITA 936/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.936/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arthada Commerce Pvt. Ltd.….…......................…...……………....Appellant Chandimara, Sapuipara, P.O. Sapuipara, P.S.Nischinda, Howrah-711206. [Pan: Aanca4546P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-13(1), Kolkata……..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sourabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 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 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).

Section 14ASection 250

…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). I.T.A. No.936/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arthada Commerce Pvt. Ltd. CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 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 Cou…

M/S. Vedanga Vinimoy Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1165/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

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).” 6. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court cou…

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…nnot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and_CIT vs. Holcim Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282. Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India Pvt. 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 Officer in the case of Maxopp Investmen…

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…nnot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and_CIT vs. Holcim Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282. Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India Pvt. 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 Officer in the case of Maxopp Investmen…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…nnot exceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and_CIT vs. Holcim Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282. Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India Pvt. 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 Officer in the case of Maxopp Investme…

Uniliver Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1755/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T (Tp) A. No.1755/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Unilever Industries Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Range-1(3)(2) Unilever House, B. D. Mumbai. Vs. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400099. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms Jasmin Amalsadwala Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 10.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms JasminFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e Tax Act, 1961 in excess of exempt income earned by the Assessee during the assessment year in question ?" 8. And the Hon’ble High Court took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (378 ITR 33) wherein it was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules would not be permissible when the assessee has not earned any income which was exempt from tax. And the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, took note of the similar ratio/decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pra…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/MsFor Respondent: Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 24Section 250

…ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Delite Enterprises [ITA No. 110 of 2009] observed that during the year no profit was earned by the appellant from the partnership firm and therefore, no question of disallowance. • Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del HC) Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd. • PCIT v. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd. [2017] (84 taxmann.com 186 (Del HC) • The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 (ITA 779/Mum/2014) (Page No 129 to 145 of LPB) held as under: "14. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applie…

D Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms Jite Shipyard Ltd

ITA/757/2023HC Delhi13 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 14A

…ITA 757/2023 Page 1 of 2 $~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 13.12.2023 + ITA 757/2023, CM APPL. 64453/2023 & 64454/2023 D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms Anuja Pethia, Standing Counsel. versus MS JITE SHIPYARD LTD ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) 1. This appeal concerns Assessme…

Narnolia & Associates LLP, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 35(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed in the terms as indicated above

ITA 740/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.739&740/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Narnolia & Associates Llp ……...................................................……Appellant 9, India Exchange Place, Room No.6/7A, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaifn4113F] Vs. Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 19.10.2022 & 27.10.2022 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’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.739/Kol/2022 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice, Therefore, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Present Appeal After Going Through The Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

Section 14ASection 250

…nto consideration which were not capable of generating exempt income. 6. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following case laws: Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 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 the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed t…

Narnolia & Associates LLP, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 35(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed in the terms as indicated above

ITA 739/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.739&740/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Narnolia & Associates Llp ……...................................................……Appellant 9, India Exchange Place, Room No.6/7A, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaifn4113F] Vs. Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 19.10.2022 & 27.10.2022 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’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.739/Kol/2022 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notice, Therefore, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Present Appeal After Going Through The Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

Section 14ASection 250

…nto consideration which were not capable of generating exempt income. 6. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following case laws: Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 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 the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed t…

Andhra Cardiology Associates Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 142/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.B.S. Maitreya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 194CSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.142/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Andhra Cardiology Associates The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Vs. Ward – 1(2), 6-3-248/1/1A, Road No.1, Hyderabad. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034. PAN : AABCA7642J. अपीलधर्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri G.B.S. Maitreya, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr. A.R. सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Pvt Ltd.) (Successor of M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2385/Mum/2022 filed by the learned

ITA 2385/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Lodha Tax, Developers Pvt. Ltd.)(Successor Of Central Circle-7(3), M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Room No,655, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 4Th Floor, 17 G, Vardhman M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Market, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai 400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM M/s Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as Lodha Tax, Developers Pvt. Ltd.)(Successor of Central Circle-7(3), M/s Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Room No,655, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 4th Floor, 17 G, Vardhman M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 market, Cawasji patel Street, Fort Mumbai 400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACL1490J Assessee by : Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 20.09.2023 Date of pronouncem…

Gateway Impex Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 780/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatgateway 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

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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…

Titagarh Capital Management Services(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 382/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 250

…ices (P) Ltd disallowance u/s 14A has to be worked by taking the investment yielding dividend income if there is no exempt income, no disallowance is attracted. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the following case laws: Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 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 We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance on the net interest expenditure of Rs.18…

Skp Securities Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C-2(2), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.611/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Skp Securities Ltd……………...................................................……Appellant 33A, J L Nehru Road, Park Street, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaecs3847A] Vs. Dcit, C.C-2(2), Kolkata................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2023 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 22.03.2023 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. That The Ld. Lower Authorities Erred In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Inr 1,00,270 Under Section 14A When The Assessee Had Sufficient Fund To Make Investment Out Of Own Funds. 2. That The Ld. Lower Authorities Erred In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Inr 1,00,270 Under Section 14A When The Assessee Did Not Earn Any Exempted Income In The First Place.

Section 14ASection 250

…further submitted that since the assessee did not earn any tax exempt income during the year under consideration, therefore, no disallowance is warranted u/s 14A of the Act. He in this respect has relied upon the following case laws: Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). CIT vs. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 486/2014 and ITA no. 299/2014; Judgment dt. 5-9-2014 CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. [2015] 230 Taxman 63 I.T.A No.611/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2014-15 SKP Securities Ltd 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 b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur vs. Mesers Narmada Drinks Private Limited, Bilaspur

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

ITA 89/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 92C

…ing with the aspects that, if there is no exempted income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance is called for: 1. CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. SLP (Civil) Diary No. 15631 of 2018 2. Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 ( Delhi) 3. PCIT v. Sintex Industries limited reported in 255 Taxman 171 7 Narmada Drinks Pvt. Ltd. 9. Ld. AR further submitted that the issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D is also covered by the judgments in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and Godavari Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022) 193 ITD 869 (Raipur), on the asp…

Deepak Pandurang Gadre, Ratnagiri vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1117/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal(Virtual Hearing)

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…Proceeding further, it is noted from the impugned order that the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.40,750/- against which disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D has been made at Rs.17,52,712/-. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) has held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC. 8. It is seen that an amendment has been carried out to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 providing th…

Mirae Asset Global Investments (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2176/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…ave been made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 14A together with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi); the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 257/226 Taxman 45 (Mag.); and decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 262/230 Taxman 63 (All.) and observed that there is uniformity in the view that in case there is no…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result all the appeals preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6455/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17

Section 14A

…e. Beside the judgments relied upon by the appellant the facts of the case are also covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) and Cheminvest Ltd-v- ACIT 378 ITR 33 Delhi wherein it has been held that where the interest free funds available with the assessee were more than investment made in tax free securities, no disallowance under section 14A could be made. The AO has incorrectly made further disallowance on this account in the computation as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The addition is therefore d…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result all the appeals preferred by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5659/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17

Section 14A

…e. Beside the judgments relied upon by the appellant the facts of the case are also covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) and Cheminvest Ltd-v- ACIT 378 ITR 33 Delhi wherein it has been held that where the interest free funds available with the assessee were more than investment made in tax free securities, no disallowance under section 14A could be made. The AO has incorrectly made further disallowance on this account in the computation as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The addition is therefore d…