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 367,514 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…ces of the case, the CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8(iii) of Rs.3,25,375/- keeping in view that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in this regard viz. M/s. I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) ha not become final and the Revenue’s appeal is pending before the Supreme Court? (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A is justified in deleting addition of Rs 13,66,95,452/- by not appreciating the fact that Coffee, beverage and food stuffs are not distinct and new articles or things within the meaning of sec…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…ces of the case, the CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8(iii) of Rs.3,25,375/- keeping in view that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in this regard viz. M/s. I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) ha not become final and the Revenue’s appeal is pending before the Supreme Court? (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A is justified in deleting addition of Rs 13,66,95,452/- by not appreciating the fact that Coffee, beverage and food stuffs are not distinct and new articles or things within the meaning of sec…

M/S. Rajdeep Automation Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2375/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Miss Jyoti SinghFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd., (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 167 (Del) after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640, Cheminvest Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and other decisions has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. In the present case, since assessee has earned exempt income of 62,111/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.1,66,283/- in A.Y. 2013-14, we relying on the aforesaid decisions, direct the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D be restricted only to the exempt in…

M/S. Rajdeep Automation Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2374/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Miss Jyoti SinghFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd., (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 167 (Del) after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640, Cheminvest Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and other decisions has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. In the present case, since assessee has earned exempt income of 62,111/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.1,66,283/- in A.Y. 2013-14, we relying on the aforesaid decisions, direct the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D be restricted only to the exempt in…

R.N. Sahni, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Mohinder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the CIT(A) had noted the fact the dividend income received by the assessee of Rs.10,581/- in para 4.3.1 of the appellate order. The disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act amounts to Rs.15,10,519/-. 4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules cannot exceed the dividend income received by the assessee. 5. Applying the said ratio to the issue involved, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D to Rs.10,581/-. Thus, Ground of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the a…

Y. J. Realty and Aviation Pvt. Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Y. J. Realty Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 6678/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Mrs Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 71

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6678, 6679 & 6680 /Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The DCIT, Central Circle YJ Reality and Aviation - 1(4) 9th Floor, Old CGO Pvt Ltd., D.B House, बिधम/ Yashodham, Gen. A.K BLDG, Annexe, M.K Vs. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Road, Mumbai – 400 020 (E), Mumbai - 400063 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACS5655A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mrs Arati Vissanji, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Vinod Kum…

Akzo Nobel India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 114/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Akzo Nobel India Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Geetanjali Middletown Street, Kolkata – 700071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci6297A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, Adv. & Purba Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92

…n be made even in the year where there is no exempt income earned or received by the assessee. The decision of the Special Bench on which the Ld. DRP placed reliance has since been reversed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33(Delhi), wherein it was held that if there is no exempt income earned or received by the assessee, no disallowance is warranted under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules. The ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol-Trib) has held 13 Akzo Nobel India Limited that it is only the investments which yields dividend du…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by revenue is dismissed

ITA 2324/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sowmya Aacharya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 14ASection 5

…y exempt income. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 5. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del) wherein it was held that if there is Page 3 of 4 no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Aggrieved, the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of AO and the CBDT Circular referred to by the AO in his order. 7. We have considered the rival submissio…

Asst CIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Pegasus Stocks & Shares P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4601/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 14A

…he disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act to the exempt income earned by the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd v. CIT (supra). 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33] held that if disallowance exceeds the exempt income the same should be restricted to the exempt income only. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2010 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue holding that there is no substantial question of law,…

Asst CIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Pegasus Stocks & Shares P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4574/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 14A

…he disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act to the exempt income earned by the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd v. CIT (supra). 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33] held that if disallowance exceeds the exempt income the same should be restricted to the exempt income only. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2010 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue holding that there is no substantial question of law,…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Unity Realty & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 79/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 79/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Mohan, AR
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 79/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s Unity Realty & DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Developers Ltd. 6th floor, R. No. 658, बिधम/ K. K. Tower, Parek Tank Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, G. D. Ambedkar Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Parel Village, Mumbai-400 012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACU8860B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Rakesh Mohan, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02…

Pony Infrastructure and Contractors Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-13(1)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 6969/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6969/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri K. G. Bohra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6969/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITO – 13(1)(4), Pony Infrastructure & Room No. 216 B, 2nd Contractors Ltd. बिधम/ floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, D. B. Maharshi Karve Marg, House, Gen. A. K. Vaidya Vs. Marg, Goregoan(East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 063 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCD4446N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri K. G. Bohra, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bohra, DR…

M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…eal, hence, no expense can be said to have been incurred in relation to exempt income. Hence the question of disallowing any expense does not arise. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del), (copy enclosed at page 63-67 of paper book) where it is held that “if no exempt income has been earned, then no disallowance is warranted.” Further reliance is also placed on the following decisions: The decision of the Allahabad High Court in ITA No. 88 of 2014, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Shivam Motors P Ltd. decided on 05.05.2014…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…eal, hence, no expense can be said to have been incurred in relation to exempt income. Hence the question of disallowing any expense does not arise. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del), (copy enclosed at page 63-67 of paper book) where it is held that “if no exempt income has been earned, then no disallowance is warranted.” Further reliance is also placed on the following decisions: The decision of the Allahabad High Court in ITA No. 88 of 2014, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Shivam Motors P Ltd. decided on 05.05.2014…

Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6759/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6759/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Welspun Steel Limited बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(3) B-Wing, Trade World, 9Th Air India Building, 19Th Vs. Floor, Kamala Mill Floor, Nariman Point, Compound, S. B. Marg, Mumbai-400021. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5308G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -39, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 210Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…gality and infirmity while deciding the issue in pursuance of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(3) of the Rules. But it is also quite correct that the disallowance is not required to exceed more than the exempt income in view of the decision of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Holcin India Pvt. Ltd. 486 of 2014 dated 05.09.2014. Accordingly, we restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income i.e. to the tune of Rs. 94,00,147/-. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO.2 5. Issue no.2 is in connection with the raising the addition in sum of…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5601/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…by confirming the Order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court holding that “Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked where no exempt income is earned by the assessee”. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs., CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del.) in which the Hon’ble High Court similarly held that “if assessee has not earned exempt income, no disallowance could be made.” He 14 ITA.Nos.3080/D/2017, 5408 & 5601/D/2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi has, therefore, submitted that no disallowance could be made by the authorities below. 13. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5408/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…by confirming the Order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court holding that “Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked where no exempt income is earned by the assessee”. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs., CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del.) in which the Hon’ble High Court similarly held that “if assessee has not earned exempt income, no disallowance could be made.” He 14 ITA.Nos.3080/D/2017, 5408 & 5601/D/2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi has, therefore, submitted that no disallowance could be made by the authorities below. 13. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders…

M/S. Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3080/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…by confirming the Order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court holding that “Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked where no exempt income is earned by the assessee”. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs., CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del.) in which the Hon’ble High Court similarly held that “if assessee has not earned exempt income, no disallowance could be made.” He 14 ITA.Nos.3080/D/2017, 5408 & 5601/D/2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi has, therefore, submitted that no disallowance could be made by the authorities below. 13. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 2003/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ngs of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that the issue involved pertaining to section 14A read with rule 8D in the present appeal is no longer res integra. We note that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi), wherein it was held that if there is no exempt income earned or received by the assessee, no disallowance is warranted under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules. The ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol-Trib) has held that it is only the investments which yields dividend during the previous year that…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1821/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ngs of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that the issue involved pertaining to section 14A read with rule 8D in the present appeal is no longer res integra. We note that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi), wherein it was held that if there is no exempt income earned or received by the assessee, no disallowance is warranted under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules. The ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol-Trib) has held that it is only the investments which yields dividend during the previous year that…