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 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

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

ITA 922/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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…

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

ITA 921/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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…

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Retail Co. Ltd (Now Merged With Aditya Birla Finance Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 96/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Retail Co. Ltd. (Now Merged With Bhavan, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle-2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S Madura Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Garments & Lifestyle Retail Bhavan, M.K. Road, Company Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Jishaan Jain, Ars Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…or the year. In other words, disallowance of expenditure under section 14A r/w rule 8D shall not exceed exempt income earned for the year. This proposition of law is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), wherein it was clearly held that disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act shall not exceed exempt income earned by the assessee for the year. As discussed in the forgoing paragraph, in the present case, although the dividend income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer has compute…

M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.474/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links Business Circle – 3(1)(2), Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaccg 2435 N Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…g the previous year. The question is whether in such situation disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made. The CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of IT(TP)A No.474/Bang/2017 Page 11 of 16 Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi) wherein it was categorically held that section 14A envisages that there should be actual receipt of income which was not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure in relation to the said income. Wherever there is no exempt income includible in the total income of the ass…

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Mittal Processors Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7013/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7013/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Mittal Processors Pvt. Ltd., Circle, Opp. Sanjay Gandhi Eye Panipat Hospital, Vpo Sewah, Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm8569N Assessee By : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shweta Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shweta Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 7013/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ACIT, Vs Mittal Processors Pvt. Ltd., Circle, Opp. Sanjay Gandhi Eye Panipat Hospital, VPO Sewah, Panipat (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCM8569N Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Shweta Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A), Karnal date…

Continental Device India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8314/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…above. There are various no. of judgments wherein it has been held that only those investments have to be considered which have actually yielded tax free income during the year;- i) ACB India vs. ACIT [2015J 374 ITR 108 (Delhi); ii) Chem Invest vs. CIT [2015J 370 ITR 33 (Delhi). iii) Pro CIT vs, IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (2017) Taxman.com 186 (Delhi). iv) Cit vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd. [2015} 272 CTR 282 (Delhi). v) HT Media Ltd. vs. Pro CIT [201. 7-TIOL-1. 643-HC-Delhi- IT]. vi) Pro CIT V. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. [201.5] 376 ITR 553/[2016] 66 taxmann.com 356 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case…

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) ITO, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25FPS Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5th Floor, 18th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25FPS Media Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Range-6(3)(1) 18th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel,…

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) ITO, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25FPS Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5th Floor, 18th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25FPS Media Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Range-6(3)(1) 18th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel,…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/COCH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi)……..” DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited The SLP filed by Revenue against the aforesaid judgment and order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builder and Constructions Private Limited(supra) in SLP (Civil)…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 403/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi)……..” DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited The SLP filed by Revenue against the aforesaid judgment and order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builder and Constructions Private Limited(supra) in SLP (Civil)…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 402/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi)……..” DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited The SLP filed by Revenue against the aforesaid judgment and order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builder and Constructions Private Limited(supra) in SLP (Civil)…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Ernakulam

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 401/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi)……..” DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited The SLP filed by Revenue against the aforesaid judgment and order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builder and Constructions Private Limited(supra) in SLP (Civil)…

The DCIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Sfo Technologies P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 400/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…me of that year. This decision follows the ratio and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CI T[2018] 402 ITR 640/254 Taxman 325/91 taxmann.com 154 and the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 and CIT v. Holcim (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi)……..” DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited The SLP filed by Revenue against the aforesaid judgment and order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Caraf Builder and Constructions Private Limited(supra) in SLP (Civil)…

Income-Tax Officer, Jalgaon vs. Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1397/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

…,25,949/-. The ld. CIT(A) directed to restrict the disallowance to the amount of the income claimed as exempt or the disallowance offered by the assessee at Rs.51,363/-, whichever is higher. 9. 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…

Income-Tax Officer, Jalgaon vs. Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1398/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

…,25,949/-. The ld. CIT(A) directed to restrict the disallowance to the amount of the income claimed as exempt or the disallowance offered by the assessee at Rs.51,363/-, whichever is higher. 9. 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Bharath Energy Venture Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2418/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 28Section 29Section 3

…during the relevant previous year and therefore in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. In doing so, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi) wherein it was categorically held that section 14A envisages that there should be actual receipt of income which was not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure in relation to the said income. Wherever there is no exempt income includible in the total income of the ass…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Bharath Energy Venture Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2417/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 28Section 29Section 3

…during the relevant previous year and therefore in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. In doing so, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi) wherein it was categorically held that section 14A envisages that there should be actual receipt of income which was not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure in relation to the said income. Wherever there is no exempt income includible in the total income of the ass…

M/S. Mahalaxmi Saws Pvt. Ltd., H-39, Road No.2B, Riico Industrial Area, Sirsi Road, Bindayaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

…as actually earned exempt income, has been affirmed by catena of judicial pronouncements. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: (i) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (ii) Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (iii) ITAT, Jaipur Bench in Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd., Alwar Vs. ACIT, in ITA No 110/JP/14 order dated 24.04.2017. In view of above fact that no exempt income was earned during the relevant previous year, provisions of section 14A will not apply and therefore disallowance made by Ld. AO u/s 14A deserves to be deleted. On merits it is submitted that…

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6862/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 6859, 6860 & 6862/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) DCIT – Circle – 2(1)(2) v. M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., Sion Trombay Road, Punjabwadi Room No. 561, 5th Floor Deonar, Mumbai - 400088 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACF0521C (Appellant) (Respondent) CO NOs. 132, 133 & 135/MUM/2021 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NOs. 6859, 6860 & 6862/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16)] M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., v. DCIT – circl…

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6860/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 6859, 6860 & 6862/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) DCIT – Circle – 2(1)(2) v. M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., Sion Trombay Road, Punjabwadi Room No. 561, 5th Floor Deonar, Mumbai - 400088 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACF0521C (Appellant) (Respondent) CO NOs. 132, 133 & 135/MUM/2021 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NOs. 6859, 6860 & 6862/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16)] M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., v. DCIT – circl…