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 366,470 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

Andhra Pradesh Power Development Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Srinivas RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

…, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on this issue. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs., CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.) and submitted that, the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the other of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The assessee-company had also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in assessee-company’s own case for earlier assessment years. 9. Dr. Narendra Kumar…

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4395/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 6(1)(1), Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S M/S. Essar Power Limited, 11Th Floor Essar House, 11 K.K. Marg, ……………… Respondent Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaace0895J Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Neena Jeph, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…e year under consideration, the assessee did not earn any exempt income, and thus, claimed no exemption under section 10(34) of the Act while filing its return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. We further find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v/s Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd., reported in [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bom.), rendered similar findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on a similar…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 5(1)(1), Noida vs. Ebixcash Limited, Noida

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

ITA 4738/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year-2018-19) M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Asst. Cit, Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Phase- Circle-5(1)(1), Ii, Noida, Vs. Gautambudh Nagar, Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Noida, Uttarparadesh. Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Circle-5(1)(1), Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautambudh Nagar, Vs. Phase-Ii, Noida, Noida, Uttar Paradesh. Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Shrirajesh Kumar Dhanesta,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

…the instant year. Thus, the settled proposition of law to the benefit of assessee is that where there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Oil Industries Development Board 103 Taxmann.com 326 (SC). 5.1 Furthermore, Ld. AR has established and demonstrated that share capital andreserves exceeds investment made, so that also does not justified disallowance. In this context, at page 31 of the PB, assessee has provided the…

Ebix Cash Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 4453/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year-2018-19) M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Asst. Cit, Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Phase- Circle-5(1)(1), Ii, Noida, Vs. Gautambudh Nagar, Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Noida, Uttarparadesh. Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Circle-5(1)(1), Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautambudh Nagar, Vs. Phase-Ii, Noida, Noida, Uttar Paradesh. Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Shrirajesh Kumar Dhanesta,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

…the instant year. Thus, the settled proposition of law to the benefit of assessee is that where there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Oil Industries Development Board 103 Taxmann.com 326 (SC). 5.1 Furthermore, Ld. AR has established and demonstrated that share capital andreserves exceeds investment made, so that also does not justified disallowance. In this context, at page 31 of the PB, assessee has provided the…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…isallowed u/s 14A & Rule 8D and further the AO has to record proper satisfaction on why the claim of the assessee as to the quantum of suo moto disallowance is not correct. Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33, wherein it is held that, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the appellant. Further in the case of assessee itself in preceding years disallowance made u/s 14A was deleted by the hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench, Jaipur for the first time in A.Y. 2010-11(APB 82-98, relevant page 90) ag…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…isallowed u/s 14A & Rule 8D and further the AO has to record proper satisfaction on why the claim of the assessee as to the quantum of suo moto disallowance is not correct. Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33, wherein it is held that, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the appellant. Further in the case of assessee itself in preceding years disallowance made u/s 14A was deleted by the hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench, Jaipur for the first time in A.Y. 2010-11 (APB 82-98, relevant page 90) a…

DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4023/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs National Fertilizers Ltd., Circle 17(2), Core-Iii, Scope Complex, New Delhi 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacn0189N

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 14A

…een listed before us. 3. In regard to these grounds, the admitted state of affairs is that there was no exempt income during the year. The ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 to give benefit to the assessee. The ld. DR could not cite before us any fact or law to the contrary. The law being settled that actual earning of exempt income gives rise to examining the issue of disallowance u/s 14A, we find the findings of the ld.CIT(A) require no interference. 2 4. The grounds No.7 to 9 in the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No…

Ankur Power Project Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4432/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ankur Power Project Pvt. Ltd., Ito Ward 15(1)(1), Office No. 201, 2Nd Floor, Kailash Aayakar Bhavan, Complex, A-2, Wing, Bhandup, Vs. Mumbai-400038. West, S.O. Mumbai-400078. Pan No. Aaica 9913 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…s no longer res- can be made in the absence of exempt income is no longer can be made in the absence of exempt income is no longer integra. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in . The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [(2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del)] has held that no disallowance under [(2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del)] has held that no disallowance under [(2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del)] has held that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted where no exe section 14A is warranted where no exempt income is earned during mpt income is earned during the relevant assessment year. Similar view has been…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Delhi vs. Unison Hotels Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4471/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Unison Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Cirlce-25(1), Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Delhi Vasant Kunj, Phase-2Nd, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacu0455C Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr.Adv., Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Akash Shukla, Adv. Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10712/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is Running Hotels. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 29.11.2014, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,21,35,196/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act On 01.09.2015. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time & Submissions Were Taken From The Assessee & Finally, The Assessment Was Completed At An Income Of Inr 30,38,83,394/- By Making Various Additions/Disallowances.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)

…by following the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. vs CIT in Civil Appeal No.9607-9615 of 2011, 2963 and 3367 of 2012 and the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 90CCH 081-Del-HC. Ld.AR further submits that Ld. CIT(A) considered the fact that the assessee is having exempt income to the extent only of INR 2,65,000/- thus ground taken by the Revenue of entire disallowance of INR 1,99,64,269/- made by AO d…

Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1228/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…e own case of the assessee for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 passed in ITA 1880/Ahd/2015 & Others vide order dated 30/09/2016. Reliance, in this respect, can also be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289, wherein, it has been held time and again that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. There is no merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. Ground No.3:- The R…

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2171/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…0 to 2014-15 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, in this respect, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee was having sufficient own/interest-free funds available with it to make the investments and, therefore, no disallowance in relation to interest expenditure was warranted in this case. The Ld.Co…

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2170/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…0 to 2014-15 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, in this respect, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee was having sufficient own/interest-free funds available with it to make the investments and, therefore, no disallowance in relation to interest expenditure was warranted in this case. The Ld.Co…

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2169/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…0 to 2014-15 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, in this respect, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee was having sufficient own/interest-free funds available with it to make the investments and, therefore, no disallowance in relation to interest expenditure was warranted in this case. The Ld.Co…

Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…e own case of the assessee for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 passed in ITA 1880/Ahd/2015 & Others vide order dated 30/09/2016. Reliance, in this respect, can also be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289, wherein, it has been held time and again that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. There is no merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. Ground No.3:- The R…

Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 855/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…e own case of the assessee for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 passed in ITA 1880/Ahd/2015 & Others vide order dated 30/09/2016. Reliance, in this respect, can also be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289, wherein, it has been held time and again that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. There is no merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. Ground No.3:- The R…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1126/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…e own case of the assessee for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 passed in ITA 1880/Ahd/2015 & Others vide order dated 30/09/2016. Reliance, in this respect, can also be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289, wherein, it has been held time and again that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. There is no merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. Ground No.3:- The R…

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 659/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…0 to 2014-15 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, in this respect, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee was having sufficient own/interest-free funds available with it to make the investments and, therefore, no disallowance in relation to interest expenditure was warranted in this case. The Ld.Co…

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 658/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…0 to 2014-15 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, in this respect, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee was having sufficient own/interest-free funds available with it to make the investments and, therefore, no disallowance in relation to interest expenditure was warranted in this case. The Ld.Co…

M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1608/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…0 to 2014-15 disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, in this respect, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also in the case of Joint investments Pvt.Ltd. reported at 116 DTR 289. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee was having sufficient own/interest-free funds available with it to make the investments and, therefore, no disallowance in relation to interest expenditure was warranted in this case. The Ld.Co…

DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3190/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalcarlsberg India Private Limited, Dy. Cit, 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Circle-5(2), Commercial Complex,D-4, Saket, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) (Assessment Year 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Carlsberg India Private Circle-5(2), Limited, New Delhi. Vs. 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca & Shri Paras Sharma, Ar & Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Carlsberg India Private Limited, Dy. CIT, 4th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Circle-5(2), Commercial Complex,D-4, Saket, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. PAN-AAJCS8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 Dy. CIT, Carlsberg India Private Circle-5(2), Limited, New Delhi. Vs. 4th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi-110017. PAN-AAJCS8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CA & Shri Paras Sharma, AR &…