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. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

…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). 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)". 10. The Hon’ble Delhi Court in the above has also considered the amendment to s…

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 175/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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). 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)". SP No.12/B/2022 & IT(TP)A No.175/B/2022 Page 10 of 15 22. The Hon’ble Delhi Co…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3573/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3573/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2012-13) The Addl. C.I.T Vs. M/s Metro Institute of Medical Special Range - 6 Sciences Pvt. Ltd New Delhi 14, Mero Hospital & Heart Instt, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar - IV New Delhi PAN: AAACU 4148 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv Department By : Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06 .09.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by th…

DCIT, Circle -25(1), New Delhi vs. Techno Trexim (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5889/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri [Dr.] B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bansal, AdvvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal
Section 14A

…unsel 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. Eros 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…

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3744/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…exempt income which fact is undisputed before us. In this factual back ground, we take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest ITA Ns. 3742 to 3744/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Royal Western I Club Ltd Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. This view has been followed by this Tribunal in the recent decision in the case of CIT Vs. V.K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd (ITA. No. 1970/Mum/2021 & ITA. No. 2218/Mum/2021 dated 03.08.2022) wherein we…

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3743/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…exempt income which fact is undisputed before us. In this factual back ground, we take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest ITA Ns. 3742 to 3744/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Royal Western I Club Ltd Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. This view has been followed by this Tribunal in the recent decision in the case of CIT Vs. V.K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd (ITA. No. 1970/Mum/2021 & ITA. No. 2218/Mum/2021 dated 03.08.2022) wherein we…

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3742/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…exempt income which fact is undisputed before us. In this factual back ground, we take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest ITA Ns. 3742 to 3744/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 Royal Western I Club Ltd Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is warranted. This view has been followed by this Tribunal in the recent decision in the case of CIT Vs. V.K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd (ITA. No. 1970/Mum/2021 & ITA. No. 2218/Mum/2021 dated 03.08.2022) wherein we…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Limited

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/293/2022HC Delhi31 Aug 2022

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

Section 14A

…ITA 293/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~S-17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 293/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.Standing Counsel and Mr.Nikhil Jain, Advocate. versus TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Yadav, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 31st August, 2022 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL) 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 16th July, 2021 passed b…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Limited

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-293/2022HC Delhi31 Aug 2022
Section 14A

…ITA 293/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~S-17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 293/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.Standing Counsel and Mr.Nikhil Jain, Advocate. versus TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Yadav, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 31st August, 2022 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL) 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 16th July, 2021 passed b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -11, Pune vs. Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, (Formerly Igate Global Solutions Ltd.), Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1935/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

…by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12. Further, it is pertinent to note that the total amount of exempt income earned by the assessee is only to the tune of Rs.9,80,400/-. 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. More recently the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425…

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1857/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

…by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12. Further, it is pertinent to note that the total amount of exempt income earned by the assessee is only to the tune of Rs.9,80,400/-. 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. More recently the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department

ITA 6366/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms.SangeetaYadav, Ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Ms.Supriya Mehta, Ld. CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…ieved against the assessment order, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order while following various decisions of the Higher Courts including of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT-IV, (2015) 378 ITR 33(Del), deleted the addition on account of disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules , on the premise that the Assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration on investments made therefore no disallowance u/s. 14A is called for. 3. The Revenue Department, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 4. We obser…

Haldia Coke and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 11, New Delhi

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

ITA 470/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(13)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…ubmission before us. In this written submission, there is no whisper about the assessee’s claim that no disallowance is required u/s 14A of the Act if no exempt income has been earned. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) reiterated the same. It has been held that even after amendment, no disallowance is required if no exempt income has been earned. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall factually verify when the assessee has whether earned any exempt income or not, thereafter he shall follow th…

Miller Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 397/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Manish Borad

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…ppeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in Principal Principal CIT vs. IL&FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 281 CTR (Del) 447 : (2015) 126 DTR (Del) 289 : (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del). Page 3 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 397/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Miller Traders Pvt. 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 Principal CIT vs. IL&FS Energy Develop…

ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi vs. Clix Finance India Unlimited, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6843/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 14ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, Kailash Building, Tax, Circle-6(1), Vs K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, Room No.390, 3rd Floor, New Delhi-110001 C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACG0239L Revenue Assessee Revenue by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr.DR Assessee by Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Date of Hearing 12.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Builder Mumbai Realty Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 22/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…n’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this issue it does not require any verification of fact or enquiry into the facts. Thus, it is crystal clear that…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…n’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this issue it does not require any verification of fact or enquiry into the facts. Thus, it is crystal clear that…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 20/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…n’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this issue it does not require any verification of fact or enquiry into the facts. Thus, it is crystal clear that…

DCIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Surya Roshni Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 810/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. Central Circle-30, 2Nd Floor, Padma Tower-1, New Delhi. 5, Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan Aaacs3558C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT(DR)
Section 119Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…earned any exempt income. The appellant has also submitted a plethora of case laws in the appellate proceedings in order to support of its contention. As per the order of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT reported as 378 ITR 33, it is 4 settled law that no disallowance/addition can be made under sec. 14A read with rule 8D, if the assessee has not earned any exempt income from the subject investment. The appellant has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 2,43,62,181/- made u/s 14A of the Act, by the Assessing Officer…

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. CIT (OSD) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room no. 552, 5 th floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACW0598C M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. CIT (OSD) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room no. 552, 5 th floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appe…