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

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Oil Industry Development Board, 262 Taxman 102 and PCIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Private Limited, 257 Taxman 2. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 and PCIT vs.IL & FS, 399 ITR 483. 23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Ther…

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Oil Industry Development Board, 262 Taxman 102 and PCIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Private Limited, 257 Taxman 2. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 and PCIT vs.IL & FS, 399 ITR 483. 23. The Ld. DR submitted that for earning investment of Rs.18,65,61,000/- the assessee has suo moto disallowed such amount of Rs.20,37,506/-. In fact, the current investments were Rs.14,11,59,91,000/- and for such exorbitant investment the assesses has not invoked the disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Ther…

Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 9, New Delhi

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

ITA 6543/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…Tribunal. 4.3 The Ld. AR submitted that during appellate proceedings the assessee revised this disallowance to Rs. 386/- based on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del) and in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del) on the proposition that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. The Ld. AR further submitted that revised working was furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR 108 (Delhi) wherein it is held that only those investments have to be consider…

M/S Capital Tours(India) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 507/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.507/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Capital Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd..............................………...…..…Appellant 1, J Embassy Building, 4, Shakepeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700 071. [Pan: Aabcc2821K] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 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 07.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [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 Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-17, Kolkata U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Wrong In The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 17, Kolkata Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee'S Contribution For

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…empt income was earned by the assessee during the assessment year under consideration and there is no expenses were made by the assessee in making the investment in question. 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 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 where the assessee has not derived any t…

Manish Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, AR & Priyanka Salarpuria, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…1 Manish Company Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Company Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 130, Cotton Street, Bura Vs. 9(1), Kolkata. Bazar, Kolkata-700007. (PAN: AABCM8092J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri N. S. Saini, AR & Priyanka Salarpuria, AR Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 28.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by…

Ghanashyam Misra & Others (HUF), A.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Burdwan vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - Burdwan, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the stands allowed

ITA 4/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.04/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ghanashyam Misra & Others (Huf)...........................………...…..…Appellant Mahismardinitalla, Kalna, Burdwan-713409. [Pan: Aabhg3775M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Burdwan........................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23, 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 30.11.2022 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’). 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.7,71,873/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Invoking The Provisions Of Section U/S 14A Of The Act.

Section 14ASection 250

…2014-15 Ghanashyam Misra & Others (HUF) 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). 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 where the assessee has not derived any t…

M/S. Exmark Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the stands allowed

ITA 695/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.695/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Exmark Projects Pvt. Ltd…….............................………...…..…Appellant P-51, Block B, Bangur Avenue, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabce5413F] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata........................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23, 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 30.11.2022 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’). 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.14,42,054/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Invoking The Provisions Of Section U/S 14A Of The Act.

Section 14ASection 250

…: 2015-16 M/s Exmark Projects Pvt. Ltd 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). 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 where the assessee has not derived any t…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Capgemini India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1917/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalit(Tp) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce Compound, Mumbai-400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/Nikhil Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…are investment income from which it does not form part of the total income, the ld. DRP has erred in directing the AO to delete the said disallowance. 30. The ld. DR relied upon the decision of Special Bench in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33, wherein it was held that disallowance is warranted u/s. 14A even in case where the assessee has not earned exempt income. The ld. DR relied on the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and the amendment brought about in April 2022. The ld. AR for the assessee controverted the same by stating that the said amendment has been held to be pros…

Capgemini India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1577/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalit(Tp) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce Compound, Mumbai-400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/Nikhil Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…are investment income from which it does not form part of the total income, the ld. DRP has erred in directing the AO to delete the said disallowance. 30. The ld. DR relied upon the decision of Special Bench in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33, wherein it was held that disallowance is warranted u/s. 14A even in case where the assessee has not earned exempt income. The ld. DR relied on the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and the amendment brought about in April 2022. The ld. AR for the assessee controverted the same by stating that the said amendment has been held to be pros…

M/S Tata Global Beverages Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. D…

M/S Tata Global Beverages Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited.........................Appellant [PAN: AABCT 0602 K] Vs. D…

Haldia Coke and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Circle 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1796/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Haldia Code & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.18/3, Sigapi Achi Building, Circle-11(1), 4Th Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Road, New Delhi. Egmore, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 004. Pan: Aabch5389P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…utation of disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 80 as the income from foreign subsidiaries is taxable. In the following cases, it has been held that where no exempt income is received, disallowance u/s.14A r.to Rule 80 is not attracted. a. Chem Investments Vs CIT ( 234 Taxmann 761)- Annexure 7 b. CIT Vs Correctech Energy Pot Ltd (372 ITR 97)- Annexure 8 The above case laws squarely applies to our case. 4 For the assessment year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s.14A r.to.Rule 8D of Rs.2,03,27,420/-. The break up of this amount is given below: Rule 8D2(ii) Rs. 1,77,24,516/- Rule 802(iii) Rs. 26,05…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…td. 248 Taxman 55 (Madras) and Revenue’s SLP dismissed in CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. 257 Taxman 2 (SC); Judgements of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs DLF Hotels Holding Ltd. in SLP (Civil) No.37851/2017 (SC) and Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del.). Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the only expenditure related to 36 | P a g e earning of exempt income can be disallowed under any circumstances no imaginary and exorbitant figure can be adopted for such disallowance. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee is a cash reach company and had huge interest…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…td. 248 Taxman 55 (Madras) and Revenue’s SLP dismissed in CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. 257 Taxman 2 (SC); Judgements of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs DLF Hotels Holding Ltd. in SLP (Civil) No.37851/2017 (SC) and Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del.). Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the only expenditure related to 36 | P a g e earning of exempt income can be disallowed under any circumstances no imaginary and exorbitant figure can be adopted for such disallowance. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee is a cash reach company and had huge interest…

ACIT Circle 25-(1), Delhi vs. Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Haryana

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

ITA 2050/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 250Section 40Section 72ASection 9(1)(vi)

…t income. Therefore, the learned CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics private Limited [2018] 257 Taxman 2 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), deleted the said addition. 23. We do not find any material contrary to the factual aspects as determined by the learned Commissioner and even otherwise any reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner on the issue in hand. Consequently, GROUND No. 2 stands dismissed. 24. GROUND no. 3 is formal in nature and t…

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

ITA 5127/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 250Section 40Section 72ASection 9(1)(vi)

…t income. Therefore, the learned CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics private Limited [2018] 257 Taxman 2 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), deleted the said addition. 23. We do not find any material contrary to the factual aspects as determined by the learned Commissioner and even otherwise any reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner on the issue in hand. Consequently, GROUND No. 2 stands dismissed. 24. GROUND no. 3 is formal in nature and t…

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

ITA 3143/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 250Section 40Section 72ASection 9(1)(vi)

…t income. Therefore, the learned CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics private Limited [2018] 257 Taxman 2 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), deleted the said addition. 23. We do not find any material contrary to the factual aspects as determined by the learned Commissioner and even otherwise any reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner on the issue in hand. Consequently, GROUND No. 2 stands dismissed. 24. GROUND no. 3 is formal in nature and t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 71 / 2023HC Delhi07 Feb 2023
Section 14A

…s are made in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. 9. Mr Sanjay Kumar, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, cannot but accept that this issue is covered against the revenue via judgment of the coordinate bench rendered in Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33. 10. As a matter of fact, in the decision rendered on 05.12.2022 in ITA 505/2022, titled Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-4 v. M/S MMTC LTD, the Court even dealt with the amendment brought about under Section 14A of the Finance Act, 2022. 11. The relevant observations made by another coordinate bench of this court which included…

Kalamkari Designs P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 1340/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1340/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1340/Del/2022, A.Y. 2014-15 Kalamkari Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, B-36 Sagar Apartments 6 Circle-11(1), Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Kolkata PAN :AABCK2117N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Nishchay Khandelwal, CA Revenue by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 27.04.2022 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi 4/11598/201…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat vs. Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 307/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nd October, 2018, where the court followed the ratio and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvst vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT vs. Holcim (P.) Ltd [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Del). Department’s SLP (Dy.No.25130 of 2019) against the decision of High Court in PCIT-2 vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.(2019) (101 txmann.com 167) (Del), where this issue was involved, has been dismissed by Supreme Court on 30.08.2019 in a summar…