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 367,302 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

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2522/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…amount was not permissible. In arriving at this 44 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 conclusion, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33). The relevant extracts of the judgement are as under: “1. The Revenue's appeal challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the disallowance of Rs. 1,62,49,000/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Assessing Officer (AO) and later the CIT (A) made the…

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…amount was not permissible. In arriving at this 44 K Raheja Corporate Sevices Pvt Ltd ITA. Nos. 2521 to 2527/Mum/2021 AYs. 2012-13 to 2018-19 conclusion, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT (378 ITR 33). The relevant extracts of the judgement are as under: “1. The Revenue's appeal challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the disallowance of Rs. 1,62,49,000/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Assessing Officer (AO) and later the CIT (A) made the…

Pearl Global Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6624/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhrypearl Global Industries Vs. Acit Ltd., A-3, Community Circle – 19(2) Centre, Naraina New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-Ii New Delhi – 110028

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…77,924/- under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules inspite of the fact that the assessee has not claimed any exempt income during the year b. Failed to appraise the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited [2015] 281 CTR 447 (Delhi) that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee. c. Applying Rule 8D in a mechanical way 9. That the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer has erred in facts and law in disallowing the excess depreciation of Rs. 43,60,260/- by - a. Alleging that the depreciation has been c…

Bothra Financial Services, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4872/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharybothra Financial Services Vs. Ito C/O. Cs Anand Adv. 104, Ward – 5(1) Pankaj Tower, New Delhi 10Lsc Savita Vihar, New Delhi-110 095

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bothra Financial Services Vs. ITO C/o. CS Anand Adv. 104, Ward – 5(1) Pankaj Tower, New Delhi 10LSC Savita Vihar, New Delhi-110 095 PAN No. AAACB 0422 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri CS Anand, Adv. Revenue by Shri Zahid Parvez, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 08.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 16.06.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.03.2019 of the Commissioner of Incom…

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir -6(2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 929/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 829/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 301/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2150/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2149/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2078/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 2077/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 3219/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 1888/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

ITA 1513/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 14ASection 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(viii)

…idered for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we find that this legal principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT 378 ITR 33 (Del), where it has been very clearly held that only those investments which yielded exempt income for relevant assessment year needs to be considered for disallowing other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case, it was claim of the assessee that Assessing Officer has considered total investments, including i…

Dion Global Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

Appeals are hereby disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA 8347/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 14A

…on 14Aofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Del), no disallowance under section 14A of the Act was required to be made, in respect of investment from which no exempt dividend income was earned during the relevant DION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Ltd. year. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred on…

Dion Global Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

Appeals are hereby disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA 8346/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14A

…on 14Aofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Del), no disallowance under section 14A of the Act was required to be made, in respect of investment from which no exempt dividend income was earned during the relevant DION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Ltd. year. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred on…

Kayer India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6146/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR
Section 14A

…venue. We note that in deciding this appeal, AO has observed that it is immaterial whether there is any exempt income or not. We note that this observation is not legally sustainable as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT - (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held that if no exempt income is earned, disallowance is not sustainable. Furthermore, ld. CIT (A) has noted the assessee’s submission that assessee has sufficient interest free funds but has 3 ITA No.6146/Del./2017 insisted that assessee should give one to one nexus with the available interest free funds and investment. We note that righ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Pace Power Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 1963/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha, H., CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…cture Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT • CIT Vs. Holcin India Pvt. Ltd. (New Delhi) • CIT Vs. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd.(All. Trib) • CIT Vs: Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.319 ITR 204(P&H) • ICICI Venture Funds Management Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT • Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT, 61 Taxmann.com 118(Delhi) • Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 392 ITR 633 (Madras) 25. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance relying on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. M. Baskaran (supra). Page 14 of 15 26. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the expenditure incurred towards earning of exempt income should be dis…

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

ITA 3688/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd, Circle-10(1), 3A/1, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcg4825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singhla, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…venue does not assert that the Assessee has earned any exempt income in year under consideration other than for the suo moto disallowances claimed then the issue of disallowances u/s 14A is covered by the binding precedent in case of Chemnivest Ltd Vs. CIT-IV 61 Taxmann.com 118 (Delhi ), CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd 57 Taxmann.com 28 (2015) Delhi, Maxopp Investment Ltd 347 ITR 272 which have been considered in Assessee‟s own case for the Assessment Year 2014-15. There is no substance in the revenue‟s appeal as raised in ground No. 1. 10. As to ground No. 2 it can be observed that the description of expenditure in…

Babanrao Dagdu Shelke, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6 (2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1404/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1404/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Babanrao Dagdu Shelke, Vs. Ito, Ward- 6(2), Pune. Flat No.08, Ganesh Gaytri Apt. 291, Somwar Peth, Pune-411011. Pan : Arxps0079D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Dismissing Appeal Of Appellant Without Serving Notice’S Of Hearing As Mentioned In Appellate Order. 2. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,86,017/- U/S 14A When No Exempt Income Is Earned By Appellant. 3. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs 3,86,017/- U/S 14A When No Expenditure Was Incurred By Appellant For Earning Any Exempt Income.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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.). 8. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and its own decision in the case of MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (s…