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

Malana Power Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3713/del/2017 for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 2464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Malana Power Co. Ltd, Bhilwara Bhawan, Circle-16(1)M 40-41, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcm1108R (Appellant) (Respondent) Malana Power Co. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Dcit, Bhilwara Bhawan, 40-41, Community Centre, New Range-6, Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcm1108R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 80I

…per the order of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008 – 09. Such is also the mandate of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd versus CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi)/[2015] 234 Taxman 761 (Delhi)/[2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi)/[2015] 281 CTR 447 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that if there is no exempt income received or receivable during the year there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14 A of the income tax act. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench as well as the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court we do not find any mer…

DCIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Majestic Infracon P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3309/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 3309/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 3310/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Majestic Infracon Pvt. Tax, Circle 12(3)(2), Room No. Ltd. 147B, 1 St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, D.B. House, फनाभ/ M.K. Rd. Mumbai-400 020 General A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 063 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct4160F अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Vatsalya Saxena, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of Revenue Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-21, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Vatsalya Saxena, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hereby, the total disallowance made was Rs.8,75,88,914/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), deleted the addition by stating that once, there is no exempt income no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rules 8D of the Rules. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. We noted that now this issue is settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment…

Babanrao Dagadu Shelke, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2515/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Babanrao Dagadu Sheke, Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Flat No.8, Ist Floor, Pune Ganesh Gayatri Apartment, 291, Somwar Peth, Pune 411 011 Pan : Arxps0079D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandrasekhar L.S. Revenue By Shri Vitthal Bhosale Date Of Hearing 18-03-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18-03-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-4, Pune On 06-06-2017 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs.850,066/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.14A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‘The Act’). 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. The Ao Observed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings That The Assessee Borrowed Certain Funds

Section 14A

…rom business, as shown in the Profit and loss account, has been 3 Babanrao Dagadu Shelke considered as taxable forming part of business profits of the assessee and there is no exempt income. 5. 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…

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Associated Hotels Limited (Successor in Interest to Indus Hotels Corp. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1433/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…ed any exempt income therefore no disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is legally permitted and for that proposition he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Chem Invest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del). The Ld. A.R drew our attention to page 28 of PB from which it is noted that the assessee has not earned any exempt income and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Chem Invest Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. GVK Project & Technical Services Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com…

Shah Mehta Holdings Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle-4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 4901/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.4901/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Shah Mehta Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 1616, Prasad Chambers ……………. Appellant Opera House, Mumbai 400 004 PAN – AAACS7608F v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–4(3)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Date of Hearing – 22.02.2021 Date of Order – 15.03.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the ord…

ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 798/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…of the case and on that score the addition is not maintainable. Ld. CIT(A), in the appeal, accepted the contention of the assessee and while placing reliance on the addition of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also the decision in Holcim India private limited in ITA No. 486/2014 and a deleted the addition. 4. Revenue is aggrieved by such deletion and preferred these appeals. Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order and submitted that insofar as the expenditure is concerned, if not in this year, in the future the assessee is likely to…

ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 797/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…of the case and on that score the addition is not maintainable. Ld. CIT(A), in the appeal, accepted the contention of the assessee and while placing reliance on the addition of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also the decision in Holcim India private limited in ITA No. 486/2014 and a deleted the addition. 4. Revenue is aggrieved by such deletion and preferred these appeals. Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order and submitted that insofar as the expenditure is concerned, if not in this year, in the future the assessee is likely to…

ACIT, Circle- 7(2), Delhi vs. Ds Group Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5483/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Circle-7(2), Delhi Vs. M/S Ds Group Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Sco No. 310, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaecd7010Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2021 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Dated 1/6/2018 In Appeal Numbers 128/2017-18 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA
Section 115Section 14Section 14A

…of the case and on that score the addition is not maintainable. Ld. CIT(A), in the appeal, accepted the contention of the assessee and while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), Holcim India private limited in ITA No. 486/2014 and also the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet investment Pvt. Ltd (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) and a deleted the addition. 3 ITA-5483/Del/2018 4. Revenue is aggrieved by such deletion and preferred these appeals. Ld. DR placed reliance on the…

DCIT, Circle-9(2), New Delhi vs. Fortis Health Management Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5477/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. N.L. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14A

…of the case and on that score the addition is not maintainable. Ld. CIT(A), in the appeal, accepted the contention of the assessee and while placing reliance on the addition of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also the decision in Holcim India private limited in ITA No. 486/2014 and a deleted the addition. 4. Revenue is aggrieved by such deletion and preferred these appeals. Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order and submitted that insofar as the expenditure is concerned, if not in this year, in the future the assessee is likely to…

Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubnaeswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 343/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.343/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Industrial Development Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Limited (Idcol), Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As Appeal Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Most Arbitrarily Disallowed Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, U/S 14A Against The Exempted Income Of Rs.5,50,000/-, Being Dividend Received From Associate Companies In Routine Manner, Without Properly Recording The Dissatisfaction Of The Assessing Officer 3. The Interest On Income Tax Refund Of Rs.8,04,924/-, Which Is Adjusted Against Demand, Was Not Properly Intimated For Which The Same Is Not Recognized As Income. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer Added Rs.6,66,721/-, As Interest On Fixed Deposit Based On The Comment Of The Auditor, Which Is Recognized In Subsequent Assessment Year. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Adding, Amount Disallowed U/S 14A, Of Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, Rs.8,04,924/-, On Account Of Income

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 111JSection 115JSection 14ASection 68

…earned for the year. In other words, disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A read with Rule 8D shall not exceed exempt income earned for the year. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs.CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33, where it was clearly held that disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A shall not exceed exempt income earned for the year . A similar view has been taken by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Voltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) 163 ITD 469. In this case, although the dividend income earned for the year is at ` 24,611/-, the A…

Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

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

ITA 2945/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2945/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 13, Megaspace, Sholapur Bazar Road, Off East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcm2461K बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-14, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sakharam Sable Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 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)- 9, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “A) The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.3,86,352/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule- 8(D), While The Appellant Company Has Not Received Any Sum By Way Of Exempt Income. Further, The Appellant Company Has Not Made Any Additional Investments Generating Exempt Income During The Year. The Company Has Not Utilized Any Borrowed Funds For Investments. On The Similar Facts, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Deleted The Disallowance For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. The Same Has Been Upheld By Itat (Pune Bench) For A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, In The Light Of Various Judicial Decisions, This Disallowance Being Unwarranted Needs Cancellation. B) The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Modify, Expand The Ground(S) Of Appeal & Lay/Produce The Evidence(S) At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sakharam SableFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
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); (vi) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 9. 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. (su…

Raghukul Trading Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1220/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurmel Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…961. 3.1. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that since assessee has not claimed any exempt income in assessment year under appeal, therefore, the issue is covered by Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest vs., CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.). The 3 ITA.No.1220/Del./2018 M/s. Raghukul Trading Pvt. Ltd., Noida. Ld. CIT(A) following his Order for the A.Y. 2012-2013 confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal of assessee. 4. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the addition is wholly unjustified. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that asses…

Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Appeal are allowed in above terms

ITA 346/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…income derived in the relevant previous years. He relied on the following case law: i. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [80 taxmann.com 221] (Madras); ii. CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., [223 Taxman 130] (Guj); iii. Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del) 4. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the departmental side. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 345 & 346/Hyd/2019 5. Their lordships hold in above decisions that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income and not otherwise. We therefore delete the impugned Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowances. 6. Th…

Sri Krishna Jewellery Mart, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Appeal are allowed in above terms

ITA 345/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…income derived in the relevant previous years. He relied on the following case law: i. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [80 taxmann.com 221] (Madras); ii. CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., [223 Taxman 130] (Guj); iii. Cheminvest Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del) 4. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the departmental side. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 345 & 346/Hyd/2019 5. Their lordships hold in above decisions that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income and not otherwise. We therefore delete the impugned Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowances. 6. Th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Ub Infrastructure Projects Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed

ITA 2813/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Girija G.P., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the i.T.Act. In holding so, the CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012- 2013 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd reported in 378 ITR 33. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the grounds raised. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own…

Amit Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 127/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2014-15) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Amit Gupta Vs ACIT C-3/260, Janakpuri, Circle-19(1) New Delhi C. R. Building, AFJPG9771Q New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CA & Ms. Hasneeta Masha, CA Respondent by Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12/10/2017 passe…

ITO, Ward- 3(4), New Delhi vs. Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6328/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6328/DEL/2017(A.Y 2014-15) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Income Tax Officer, Vs M/s Athena Energy Ventures Ward-3(4) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi J-38, Second Floor, B K Dutt Colony, Jor Bagh Lane New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr. DR Respondent by None Date of Hearing 17.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order dated 07/08/2017 passed…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, we reverse the order of Assessing Officer in curtailing the deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act by ₹ 6,75,000/-. Thus, grounds of appeal No.10.1, 10.2 ...

ITA 4957/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4957 & 6434/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S Reliance Life Acit-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Ambani Estate, Ttc Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Are Of Midc, Rabale Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2130/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Reliance Life Jt.Cit (Osd)-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Ambani Estate, Ttc Bhavan, Vs. Are Of Midc, Mumbai-20 Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 14ASection 43Section 92F

…he Act should not exceed the exempt income. The Revenue filed SLP against this decision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33]. 49. In the case of ACIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., in ITA.No. 346 to 379/NAG/2014 dated 04.12.2015 the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest v. CIT (supra) held as under: “6. We have heard both the sides at some length and carefully perused the orders of the author…

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, we reverse the order of Assessing Officer in curtailing the deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act by ₹ 6,75,000/-. Thus, grounds of appeal No.10.1, 10.2 ...

ITA 2130/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4957 & 6434/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S Reliance Life Acit-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Ambani Estate, Ttc Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Are Of Midc, Rabale Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2130/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Reliance Life Jt.Cit (Osd)-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Ambani Estate, Ttc Bhavan, Vs. Are Of Midc, Mumbai-20 Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 14ASection 43Section 92F

…he Act should not exceed the exempt income. The Revenue filed SLP against this decision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33]. 49. In the case of ACIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., in ITA.No. 346 to 379/NAG/2014 dated 04.12.2015 the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest v. CIT (supra) held as under: “6. We have heard both the sides at some length and carefully perused the orders of the author…

DCIT (Ltu-2), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3849/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Sreekar, DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 IDBI Bank Ltd., DCIT – LTU (2), 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Vs. 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Complex, Cuffe Parade, Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400 005 PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT – LTU (2), IDBI Bank Ltd., 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Vs. 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 005. PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Ap…