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

ACIT-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Essel Utilities Distribution Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4707/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Essel Utilities Distribution Co. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. 135 Continental Building Circle – 6(2)(2) Room No. 504, 5Th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadce1449D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Amlani Department By : Shri Maurya Pratap

For Appellant: Shri Amit AmlaniFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 115JSection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Essel Utilities Distribution Co. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. 135 Continental Building Circle – 6(2)(2) Room No. 504, 5th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AADCE1449D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Amit Amlani Department by : Shri Maurya Pratap Date of Hearing : 04.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appea…

M/S Firepro Wireless & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 251/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…nds has been utilized for investment activities.” When undisputedly no dividend income has been earned by the assessee during the year under assessment, no disallowance can be made. 9. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 has held that, “In the absence of exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of any amount was not permissible.” So, we are of the considered view that since assessee has not earned any dividend income nor proved to have incurred any expenditure on the investment during the year under assessment, no disallowance can be made, hence disallowance of Rs.1…

M/S Firepro Wireless & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 250/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…nds has been utilized for investment activities.” When undisputedly no dividend income has been earned by the assessee during the year under assessment, no disallowance can be made. 9. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 has held that, “In the absence of exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of any amount was not permissible.” So, we are of the considered view that since assessee has not earned any dividend income nor proved to have incurred any expenditure on the investment during the year under assessment, no disallowance can be made, hence disallowance of Rs.1…

DCIT, CC-6(4), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Sez Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5069/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dcit, Cent. Cir. 6(4), M/S Mumbai Sez Limited, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34 P.D. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mello Road, Masjid Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Mumbai - 400009 Pan : Aabcg2739C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2019

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 6(4), M/s Mumbai SEZ Limited, R. No. 1925, 19th Floor, 1st Floor, Jai Centre, 34 P.D. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mello Road, Masjid Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Mumbai - 400009 PAN : AABCG2739C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari (DR) Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt (AR) Date of Hearing: 05/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28/11/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue a…

M/S Pinewood Information Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 244/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…under assessment nor any dividend earned. It is settled principle of law that when no dividend has been earned by the assessee, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 9. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 has held that, “In the absence of exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of any amount was not permissible.” So, we are of the considered view that since assessee has not earned any dividend income nor proved to have incurred any expenditure on the investment during the year under assessment, no disallowance can be made, hence disallowance of Rs.4,…

Unipres India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 3 (2), Chennai

ITA 1851/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: 30.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(3)

…ate Limited(supra) relied upon this decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Redington India(supra) to hold and decide the issue in favour of tax-payer. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33(Delhi) is relevant. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Limited ITA no. 51 of 2016,vide judgment dated 13.10.2016 has also held that when no exempt income is earned by tax- payer, no disallowances of expenditure u/s 14A are warranted. Thus, keeping in view decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Hig…

S.B. & T International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 11(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 51/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Uodhalraj Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…tive submitted, since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year, the provisions of section 14A r/w rule 8D would not be applicable. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.); and ii) PCIT v/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd., ITA no.51/2016, dated 13.10.2016 (Bom.). 9 M/s. S.B. & T. International Ltd. 12. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the DRP. 13. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the stage of assessment…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 147/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &
Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…TA No. 1503/Mds/2012 dtd. 17.07.2013). (ii)While computing disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D, investment in which no dividend has been earned needs to be excluded. The above view finds support from the following decisions:- - Cheminvest Ltd. vs –CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del). - All Bank Finance Ltd -vs.- JCIT in ITA No. 465/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 dtd. 13.01.2016 (iii)If the AO does not agree with the claim of the assessee having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee, then it is not mandatory for him to resort to Rule 8D to quantify the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The above view finds support from t…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 109/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &
Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…TA No. 1503/Mds/2012 dtd. 17.07.2013). (ii)While computing disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D, investment in which no dividend has been earned needs to be excluded. The above view finds support from the following decisions:- - Cheminvest Ltd. vs –CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del). - All Bank Finance Ltd -vs.- JCIT in ITA No. 465/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 dtd. 13.01.2016 (iii)If the AO does not agree with the claim of the assessee having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee, then it is not mandatory for him to resort to Rule 8D to quantify the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The above view finds support from t…

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 208/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, CIT, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…2. Having regard to rival contentions and material placed on record, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Tribunal and also the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemivest Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del), wherein it was held that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for when there is no exempt income earned by assessee during respective FY. Respectfully following the same, the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act is directed to be deleted. In the result, ground no.6 is allowed. 7. As regards ground no.5 against disallowance of bad debts, the br…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Kmg International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6064/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Kmg International Ltd. Vs. Acit 375, Main Road, Gazipur, Circle 5 (1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aacck0590Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit Vs. Kmg International Ltd. Circle 5 (1) 375, Main Road, Gazipur, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aacck0590Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68

…the year. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Holecim India (Private) Limited vide ITA No.486/14 and ITA No. 299/14 order dated 05.09.2014 and the decision in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT reported 370 ITR 33 the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. It has been held in these decisions that no disallowance u/s. 14 A can be made where the assessee has not received any exempt income. The ground No. 5 by the assessee is accordingly allowed and ground appeal No. 6 and 6.1 by the revenue are dismissed. 22. So far as ground No. 3 to 3.1 by the…

M/S Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3362/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-16(3), S-555, Greater Kailash, Part- New Delhi I, New Delhi PAN :AAACM5478K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sumit Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.DR Date of hearing 24.09.2019 Date of pronouncement 14.11.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30/01/2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A…

M/S.Kollam Royal Park Hotel & Resorts P> Ltd, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Kollam

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

ITA 268/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…t the judgment of the High Court of Delhi wherein it was held that in the absence of exempt income, disallowance u/s. 14A was impermissible. The Hon. Delhi High Court had relied on its earlier judgment in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). ii) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxoop Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann. com 154 (SC) had concurred with the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act. (Para 40 of the judgment) iii) The Hon’ble Apex…

Tata Automcomp Systems Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 346/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AAACT1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 20…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Tata Autocomp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AAACT1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 20…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2452/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rishabh Shah & Rakesh Joshi- Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H.Ansari- Ld.DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 92C

…d by catena of judicial pronouncements, few of which could be enumerated in the following manner: - No. Case Law Judicial Authority Citation 1. CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. Hon’ble Delhi High Court 111 DTR 158 2. Cheminvest Ltd Vs CIT Hon’ble Delhi High Court 378 ITR 33 3. PCIT Vs IL&FS Energy Dev. Co. Hon’ble Delhi High Court 84 Taxmann.com 186 Ltd. 4. PCIT Vs Empire Package Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 81 Taxmann.com 108 5. CIT Vs Lakhani Marketing Inc. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 2015 4 ITR-OL 246 6. CIT Vs Hero Cycles Ltd Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 323 ITR 518 7. CIT Vs. Wins…

M/S. Kivar Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1553/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel to Dept
Section 14A

…d out disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.40,49,451/- as per provisions of Rule 8D of IT Rules. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the same. 3. The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. DCIT (378 ITR 33) and submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A is not warranted when there is no exempt income. He further submitted that the above said decision was followed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Ambuthirtha Power P Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No.243 (Bang) 2016 dated 07-07-2017). Accordingly he submitted that the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act s…

Infolink Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 09, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

ITA 572/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Infolink Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 45/2225, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-09, Samadhan Chs Ltd. Mumbai Near Mhada Office, Vs. Gandi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaaci9120N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Manish Shah/Ms. Miyanta Mehta (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Girison (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2019

For Appellant: Manish Shah/Ms. Miyanta Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Girison (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153C

…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). Relevant portion of the judgment in McDonalds India (P.) Ltd. (supra) reads:— '8. The decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) is significant and does answer the question in issue. This decision does not support the Revenue as the Assessin…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. C 1 India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 418/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 615 To 618/Del/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2007-08 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" C-1 India Pvt.Ltd., D-5, Defence Colony, New Delhi. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aabcc4078L Vs Acit, Central Circle-13, …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…. 25. Now coming to the next issue that the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act wherein no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the year. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), we hold that no disallowance in such cases is to be made in the hands of the assessee. Hence, Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 26. The last appeal filed by the Revenue is against the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Revenue has raised following grounds in th…

M/S. C- 1 India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 615/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 615 To 618/Del/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2007-08 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" C-1 India Pvt.Ltd., D-5, Defence Colony, New Delhi. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aabcc4078L Vs Acit, Central Circle-13, …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…. 25. Now coming to the next issue that the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act wherein no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the year. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.), we hold that no disallowance in such cases is to be made in the hands of the assessee. Hence, Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 26. The last appeal filed by the Revenue is against the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Revenue has raised following grounds in th…