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.

How many judgments cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT?

1,569 judgments on BharatTax cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 33), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 8D, Section 115JB, Section 250, Section 1961.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 33)

Pr. CIT -1, Delhi vs. M/S. Crystal Crop Protection

ITA/173/2022HC Delhi25 Jul 2022

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

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tion already. The ITAT accordingly concluded that the assessee is eligible to raise additional issues at the appellate stage. 7. The ITAT in its impugned order after relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 set aside the disallowance made by the AO, holding that since no exempt income was earned by the assessee, no disallowance was called for. With respect to the Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February, 2014, relied upon by the AO, the ITAT relied upon the judgment dated 16th August, 2017 of this High Court in the case of IL&FS Energy Development Com…

M/S. Maxivision Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 139/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 1Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t, 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). 7. After hearing rival contentions and going through the decision of Hon’bl…

ACIT, Erode vs. P & C Constructions (P) Limited, Erode

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 349/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)

…d disallowance by invoking Rule 8D. However, fact remains that disallowance computed u/s.14A cannot exceed exempt income C.O. No.65/Chny/2016 and this principle is supported by decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where the Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that disallowance contemplated u/s.14A cannot swallow entire exempt income. In this case, the assessee has earned exempt income, like dividend from shares and profit from joint venture partnership consortium in respect of joint venture partnership, there cannot be any disallowance, because…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mandava Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 2089/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. M/S. Mandava Holdings Circle 16(2) (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm4964M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.9.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Core Investment & Filed Its Return Of Income Admitting Total Loss At (-) Rs 1,91,29,508/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.11.2014 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.1,43,53,566/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The I.T. Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…orm part of the total income alone can be disallowed. In the case before use, when the assesssee has not earned any exempt income, there can be no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33(Del.) has held that section 14A will not apply where no exempt income iss received or receivable during the relevant assessment year" Page 2 of 7 ITA No 2089 of 2017 Mandava Holdings P Ltd Hyderabad Respectfully following the Hon'ble ITAT decision in the above mentioned case, the addition made by the Assessing Officer deleted since there is no…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 773/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…erused the record. The co- ordinate bench has deleted identical disallowance made in AY 2013-14 on noticing that the assessee did not earn any exempt income, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (317 ITR 33)(Delhi). Identical view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (250 Taxman 0174)(Delhi). Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year relevant to AY 2011-12, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made…

M/S.Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2041/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…erused the record. The co- ordinate bench has deleted identical disallowance made in AY 2013-14 on noticing that the assessee did not earn any exempt income, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (317 ITR 33)(Delhi). Identical view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (250 Taxman 0174)(Delhi). Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year relevant to AY 2011-12, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm India (P) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…erused the record. The co- ordinate bench has deleted identical disallowance made in AY 2013-14 on noticing that the assessee did not earn any exempt income, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (317 ITR 33)(Delhi). Identical view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (250 Taxman 0174)(Delhi). Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year relevant to AY 2011-12, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made…

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 471/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…ation 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. 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/-. 5 ITA No.471/Del./2018 The break up of this amount is given below: Rule 8D2(ii) Rs. 1,77,24,516/-…

Dr. Kamal Kumar Sethi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4525/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ceed the exempt income of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT(2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Delhi) 282. In taking this view, we are also supported by the following decisions: (i) Pr. CIT vs. Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. (2020) 114 taxmann.com 529 (Bom) (ii) Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. Jt. CIT (2018) 256 Taxman 349 (Kar) (iii) Pr. CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99…

M/S. Nandan Associates, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1754/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1754/Pun/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nandan Associates, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Flat No.1, Sl.No.82/2, Pune Nandadeep Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra Pan : Aaffn6713N Appellant Respondent

Section 14ASection 80I

…see admittedly did not have any income from such projects. Once there is no exempt income, there cannot be any question of making disallowance u/s.14A. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) wherein it was held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom) has also held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14…

DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi vs. Trustline Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4691/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chaudhary, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14A

…e has been no dividend income received by the company from investments, no disallowance was called for. It is stated in this regard that as per the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT 374 ITR 108 (Del) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del) only such investments have to be considered for the purpose of disallowance on which income has actually been received during the year. There was no investment on which disallowance is called for...’’ 3 It can therefore be safely inferred from the impugned order that the satisfaction of the AO for disallowance of expenses, in view of the pre…

ACIT 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No. 528/Mum/2022 CO No.: 76/Mum/ 2022 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI B BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai .…………………………Appellant Vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures P. Ltd., ……………...…………Respondent 106-107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAACA3565F] CO No.: 76/Mum/ 2022 Arising out of ITA No. 528/Mum/20122 Assessment year 2017-18 Bajaj Capital Ventures P. Ltd., ……………...………… Appel…

DCIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi vs. Transcend Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5178/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. Transcend Infrastructure Circle – 25(2) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi - 110002 Plot No. B-15, Ff, Sec-32, Gurgaon-122 001 Pan No. Aacct 7115 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…amely CIT Vs Om Prakash Khaitan 376 ITR 390 that even if satisfaction is recorded, no disallowance can be made if no nexus between expenditure incurred and income not forming part of total income has been established by AO. In the case Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33, Hon’ble Court, after reversing the decision of Spl. Bench, opined that if no exempt income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year and since the genuineness of expenditure incurred was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A of the Act. In a decision dated 16.08.2017 in the case of II & FS Energy Development Vs. Pr.…

Vibha Agrotech Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 179/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vibha Agrotech Limited, Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 17(2), Pan : Aaacv8157A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Ca P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing: 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dt.21.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Sri CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT

Section 10(1)Section 14ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vibha Agrotech Limited, Vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 17(2), PAN : AAACV8157A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri CA P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT Date of hearing: 23.06.2022 Date of pronouncement: 28.06.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

ITA 1768/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Sh. Sandip Raj, CIT-DR

Section 14A

…d that the assessee company has neither earned, any exempt income nor claimed any exempt income and therefore disallowance under section 14A of the Act is not tenable. The assessee placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements: 1) Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) 2) CIT vs Lakhani Marketing Inc-(2014) 272 CTR 265 (Punjab & Haryana) 3) CIT vs Winsome Textile Industries Ltd-(2009) 319 ITR 204 (Punjab & Haryana) 4) CIT vs Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd-(2014) 272 CTR 262 (Gujarat) 5) CIT vs Shivam Motors (P) Ltd (2015) 272 CTR 277 (Allahabad) 6) Pr. CIT vs M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd-ITA No. 51 of 2016 (Bom…