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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Vandana Ispat Limited, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…ure has been incurred by him in relation to income in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act, Supreme Court in April 2019 dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) in case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC), against the 20 decision of the Delhi High Court holding that no question of law arose from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), thereby deleting the disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), absent any exempt income during the year. In 2018, SC had previously dismissed SLP in case of CIT v.…

M/S M/S Nav Bharat Press, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.06/Rpr/2017 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.162/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2015-2016) M/S Nava Bharat Press, Vs Acit, Cirlce-3(1), Raipur Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadfn 0350 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal & Shri Sudhir Baheti, CAsFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.06/RPR/2017 AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.162/RPR/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2015-2016) M/s Nava Bharat Press, Vs ACIT, Cirlce-3(1), Raipur Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN No. : AADFN 0350 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal & Shri Sudhir Baheti, CAs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Schoolnet India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Suresh Joshi
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Circle -14(1)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 455, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 [PAN: AABCI2106H] ……………… Appellant Schoolnet India Ltd., Vs 3rd Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block The IL & FS Financial Centre, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri Sanyam Suresh Joshi For the Respondent/Assessee : None Date of conclusion of hearing : 11.10.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 28.10.2022 O R…

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax-1 vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA/175/2020HC Delhi27 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 14ASection 260A

…ITA 174/2020 and 175/2020 Page 1 of 7 $~ 43 and 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 174/2020 & CM APPL. Nos.8721-8722/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue with Mr.Vipul Agrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal, Advocates. versus AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi with Mr.Tarun Singh, Advocates. + ITA 175/2020 & CM APPL. Nos.8825/2020, 8827/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue with Mr.Vipul Agrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal, Advoca…

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genpact India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep SinghFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal
Section 14A

…ounsel for the assessee submits that during the assessment year the assessee did not receive any exempt income and the ld. CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT (378 ITR 33). The ld. Counsel further submits that in a recent decision, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. In ITA. 204/Del/2022 dated 20.07.2022 held that the Amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2022 to the provisions of section 14A of the Act clarifying even if there is no exempt income the provisions…

Guardian Lifecare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 22

ITA 6152/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. Guardian Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 10(2) A-258, Okhla Industrial New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aabcg 9903 G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Guardian Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Wz-56, Second Floor, Circle – 10(2) Ram Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi – 110018 Pan No. Aabcg 9903 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2018 Passed By The 2 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…long as expenditure was incurred for earning such income. 3 1.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A), in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, has erred in relying upon the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT(378 ITR 33). 1.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no settled proposition, applicable uniformly across all fact-situations, to the effect that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in case the assessee has not earned any exempt income in a particular year, as evident f…

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Guardian Lifecare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 22

ITA 5874/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. Guardian Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 10(2) A-258, Okhla Industrial New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aabcg 9903 G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Guardian Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Wz-56, Second Floor, Circle – 10(2) Ram Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi – 110018 Pan No. Aabcg 9903 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2018 Passed By The 2 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…long as expenditure was incurred for earning such income. 3 1.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A), in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, has erred in relying upon the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT(378 ITR 33). 1.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no settled proposition, applicable uniformly across all fact-situations, to the effect that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in case the assessee has not earned any exempt income in a particular year, as evident f…

ACIT Circle 10(1), Delhi vs. Hero Future Energies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for

ITA 1986/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…I find that there are decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the same issue which favour the case of the appellant and is binding on me. 7.3. It is noticed that the jurisdictional Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT-IV, [378 ITR 33] (2015), while placing reliance on its earlier judgement in the case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. 57 Taxmann.com 28 (2015) has held that Sec.14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. In this case, it was held that- "the expression ‘does not form part of the total income’ in section 14A envisa…

ACIT Circle 10(1), Delhi vs. Hero Wind Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 14A

…alled for was rejected by the Assessing Officer. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) found that this issue is in favour of the assessee in as much as he referred to 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 Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Del.). Referring to these decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard may gainfully read as under:- “6.1 The crux of the appellant’s submission is that during the year under consideration the appell…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur vs. Abhishekh Steel Industries Ltd., Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.107/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Abhishek Steel Industries Ltd. B-8 & 9, Sector C, Urla Industrial Area, Sarona, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 12 ACIT (Central)-2 Vs. Abhishek Steel Industries Ltd. of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxmann 2(SC) and also those of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT, (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. 57 Taxmann.com 28(2015). The ld. A.R submitted that as per the settled position of law in absence of any exempt income no disallowance u/s.14A could have even otherwise been made in the hands of the assessee. In the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before us r/w. the aforesaid settled position of…

Shree Garuda Plant Products Ltd, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (2), Nashik

ITA 492/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(22)(e)

…n admitted position that the assessee, in fact, did not earn any exempt income from the investment made in Marigold Properties during the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 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 v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd . [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28. More recently the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects (P.) Ltd . [2021] 276 Taxman…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…Trust Association [1992] 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi). M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., (Formerly known as Idea Cellular Ltd.,) 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 IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra).” 5.3. Respec…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…Trust Association [1992] 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi). M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., (Formerly known as Idea Cellular Ltd.,) 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 IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra).” 5.3. Respec…

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited), Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 777/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 37

…o our notice that the assessee did not receive any exempt income. This fact, could not be controverted by Ld. CIT-DR even before us. In such a scenario, the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33) wherein their Lordship’s has held that when the assessee had not earned exempt income then no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was warranted. However, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 did not accept the contention of assessee. So the appeal before us. The facts are undisputed. We do not countenance this impug…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle vs. M/S Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd

ITA/380/2022HC Delhi06 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 14A

…ITA 380/2022 Page 1 of 4 $~S-57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 380/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Vipul Agrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal, Jr.Standing Counsel. versus M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD . ..... Respondent Through: None. % Date of Decision: 06th October, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T CM APPL.43156/2022 1. Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Accordin…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

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

ITA 3033/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…at, 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). 12.3 Accordingly, the issue of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii…

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2873/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…at, 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). 12.3 Accordingly, the issue of disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii…

Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 350/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Cit(A), Nfac (Delhi) Vs 40, Strand Road Model House Ground Floor Room No. 102 Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacw5921F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT
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).” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court cou…

Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 284/KOL/2021[2015-116]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2015-116

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 284/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Wrinkle Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Cit(A), Nfac (Delhi) Vs 40, Strand Road Model House Ground Floor Room No. 102 Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aaacw5921F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT
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).” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court cou…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2512/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoppers Stop Limited, Tax, Central Circle-4(2), 5Th Floor, Umanag Tower, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. Malad Link Road, Mindspace, India Building, Nariman Point, Malad (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aabcs 4383 A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Sathe & Aasavari Kadam, Ars Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe &For Respondent: Mr. Kailash Kanojia, CIT-DR

…Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS vision Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax sioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33. (2015) 378 ITR 33. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, 10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide it is clarified that the order passed in the present…