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 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 367,368 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 14A Section 143(3)Section 8D Section 115JB Section 250 Section 1961 Section 37(1)Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14a disallowance under section 14a section 14a section 36(1)(iii)section 115jb revenue expenditure section 37(1)section 37 section 36 previous year scrutiny assessment section 115

Judgments citing Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistamt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 758/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Shivastava

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

…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); (vi) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.) 22. In the light of above legal position, we do not find any illegality in the finding of ld. CIT(A) in holding that provisions of section 14A have no application in the absence of any exempt income. Accordingly, this ground stands dismissed. CO No.43/PUN/2019 23.…

JCIT, Circle 22(1), New Delhi vs. Samtel Machines and Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1973/DEL/2019[2013/14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharatprojects Ltd., 501, Copia New Delhi Corporation Suites, District Centre Jasola, Pan No. Aaact 0626 Q New Delhi – 110 025 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…xplain as to why the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act not be made. 7. Assessee inter alia submitted that it has not earned any exempt income and therefore placing reliance in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [90 CCH 091] and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ITO [378 ITR 33] submitted that when no exempt income has been earned, no disallowance u/s14A of the Act was called for. The submissions of the assessee not found acceptable to AO. AO thereafter worked out the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules at Rs.1,97,88,967/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genesis Colors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3731/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 80G

…was not justified in deleting the addition. 45. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 Delhi has held that in the case where no exempt income is earned, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, is called for. 46. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided this issue by observing as under:- “The Assessing Office…

M/S Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3472/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 80G

M/S Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3471/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 80G

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…that it has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year and therefore, as per the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. ITA No. 4091/Mum/2019 & CO No. 72/Mum/2021 Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd. (378 ITR 33) and Holcim India P. Ltd. ( 272 CTR 282) , no disallowance u/s. 14A can be made. Further, as regards the disallowance out of interest u/s. 14A, the assessee submitted that out of the total interest of Rs. 24.44 crs. debited in the P&L A/c., an amount of Rs. 14.95 crs. has been claimed u/s. 24 and the balance interest of Rs. 9.49 crs. has not at al…

Dy CIT. CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. D.B. Realty Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja RenderFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…the revenue the Hon‟ble Bombay High court held that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income could not exceed the exempt income earned. It was further held that the ratio of the decisions in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) (HC)) and CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 486 of 2014 decided on September 5, 2014(Delhi) (HC) would include a facet where the assessee‟s exempt income was not nil, but had earned exempt income which was more than the expenditure incurred by the assessee in order to earn such income. The order of the Tribunal which restricted th…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. 500082 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 189/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos.186 to 189/Hyd/2021 and SA Nos.36 to 39/Hyd/2021 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2017-18 M/s. Vivimed Labs Vs. The Asst.Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(3), PAN : AAACV6060A. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Advocate. Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR. Date of hearing: 12.02.2022 Date of pronouncement: 12.04.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These assessee’s four a…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITA 188/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR

Section 143(3)

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 187/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR

Section 143(3)

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 186/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Nsl Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 262/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.262/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nsl Sugars Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 60/1, 2Nd Cross V. Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Residency Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aagcs0938Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Am : This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Dcit Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 30.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. Brief Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Sugar & Molasses Etc. It Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-2017 On 30.11.2016 With Returned Loss Of Rs.78,24,50,827. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. Reference Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) For Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Specified Domestic Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee. The Tpo Passed An Order U/S 92Ca On 30.10.2019 Proposing The Adjustment Of Rs.96,57,60,845. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed A Draft Assessment Order On 23.12.2019 Incorporating The Tp Adjustment Proposed By The Tpo. In Addition, The Ao

For Appellant: Sri.T.Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

…mpt income during the year. The learned AR also stated that it is now settled principle that when there is no exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted based on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 6. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the fact, as admitted by the DRP, it is clear that the assessee has not earned any income exempt under the tax during the relevant year under consideration. Hence, the ratio lai…

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms of aforesaid

ITA 411/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia with Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…s now well settled that section 14A of the Act will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during relevant previous year. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT: 378 ITR 33 and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. M/S Ballarpur Industries Ltd. ITA No. 51 of 2016. In the present appeal, it is clearly evident from the Schedules to the financial statements that no dividend / exempt income was received by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Thus, in the light of settled legal position, we direct th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Deccan Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.238/VIZ/2021 (Asst. Year : 2015-16) DCIT, Vs. M/s. Deccan Ferro Alloys Circle-3(1), Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AAACD 0536 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 08/03/2022 Date of pronouncement: 07/04/2022 O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Ce…

M/S Sudhakar Barter Pvt. Ltd.(Now Sudhakar Barter LLP), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.141/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sudhakar Barter Pvt. Ltd (Now Sudhakar Barter Llp) …….......... .........................................……….……Appellant 2Nd Floor, C-11, Shivalik Colony, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi [Pan: Aakcs5649E] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata..……….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 31, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 31, 2022

Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…nts made, no disallowance is to be made u/s 14A. Reliance in this respect can be place on the following case laws: CIT, Faridabad Vs. Lakhani Marketing Inc.' 226 Taxman 45 (P&H); CIT Vs. Winsome Textiles (2009) 319 ITR 204 (P&H) Cheminvest Ltd Vs. ITO' (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. (2014) 45 Taxman.com 116 (Gujarat High Court) CIT Vs. M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd' (2014) 272 CTR (All) 277 In all the above referred to case laws, the Hon'ble High Courts have been unanimous to hold that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of the Act in case the assessee has not earned any income not forming part of…

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Trichy

In the result, appeal of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed

ITA 3156/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. M/S. Dalmia Dalmia Bharat Bharat Trichy Ltd.,Dalmiapuram, Tamilnadu - Ltd.,Dalmiapuram, Tamilnadu 621 651, Pan/Gir No.Aajcs 7366 K Aajcs 7366 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : N O N E Revenue By : Dr S.Palanikumar, Cit (Dr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/3/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Dr S.Palanikumar, CIT (DR

Section 14A

…lhi) held that if investments made for the urposes of the business of the company in subsidiaries etc. there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view taken in the subsequent decision by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 10.5 It is seen that a substantial amount of investment has been made by the appellant in the subsidiary/group companies for strategic purpose of having management and control over the affairs of the company and to achieve business objectives and not for the motive to earn dividend. 10.6 Further, section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) prov…

M/S Ind Synergy Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 312/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 312/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ind Synergy Limited Gokul Puram, Kachna Road, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaci7072D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shravankumar Meena, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shravankumar Meena, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…d admittedly not received any exempt income during the year under consideration, therefore, no disallowance u/s.14A could have been made in its hands. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 ( Delhi) (ii) Pr. CIT Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. (2021) 127 taxmann.com 115 ( Karnataka) (iii) Pr. CIT Vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 ( Bom.) (iv) Pr. CIT Vs. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom.) 8. Backed by our aforesaid observations, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to…

Asstt. CIT (OSD) - CC -7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 68/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S Shri Rifaur Rahamn & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – Cc-7(3) Vs. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, 6Th Ltd (Successor To Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Mk Road, Mumbai – Buildmart Pvt Ltd) 400020. (Earlier Known As Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent Macrotech Developers Vs. Dcit – Cc-7(3) Ltd (Successor To Room No. 655, 6Th Bellissimo Crown Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Buildmart Pvt Ltd) Mk Road, Mumbai – (Earlier Known As 400020. Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…uring the year. The computation of income filed by the assessee along with the financials have been perused and it is seen that the assessee has not earned any exempt income. 6.3 It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. 378 ITR 33, wherein the Hon'ble High court held categorically that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. More recently the jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT 8 vs Zee News Ltd. ITA Nos. 785 & 789 of 2015 vide its order dated 05.02.2018 held as under: "We find that the impugned…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Lakhani India Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6146/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6146/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Dcit Lakhani India Ltd. Vs. Circle-1, Block-B, Plot No. 265, New Cgo Complex, Sector-24, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3113G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14A

…llowance is required to be made when no exempt income was earned has been negated by the Assessing Officer as he has followed the decision of Spl. Bench ‘Delhi’ in the case of Chem Invest. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT [378 ITR 33] held that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. Further the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 51/2016 held that when there is no exempt income received by the assessee no disallowance is warranted u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the interest expenditure disallow…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ind Barath Power Gencom Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 923/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godaraappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Samuel Nagadesi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…income in either of the assessment years. We note in this backdrop that their lordships in CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [80 taxmann.com 221] (Madras); , CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., [223 Taxman 130] (Guj); and Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del) hold that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income and not otherwise. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year. We therefore sustain the order of CIT(A) under challenge for this precise reason alone. No other ground has been pressed…