Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Futura Value Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

…ed to calculate the disallowance based upon the investments made by the assessee. The CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeals by following the ruling in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi); the Court had then held that in the absence of any exempt income disallowance was impermissible. For the relevant Assessment Year (2013-14), concededly, the assessee did not report any exempt income. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises; the appeal is therefore dismissed alongwith the pending application. The revenue fails…

DCIT 10 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

…isallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 5. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Cheminvests Ltd. (378 ITR 33) and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Delite Enterprise (8 taxmann.com 10) for the proposition that where there is no exempt income provisions of section 14A cannot be affected. However, learned CIT(A) has sustained suo moto disallowance of Rs. 40,34,894/- and Rs. 2,514/-made by the assessee itself for the concerned assessment…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastucture & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…n, therefore question of application of section 14A simply does not apply. Keeping in view the submissions of the assessee and while drawing strength from the judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). We restore this ground back to the file of AO with a direction to verify as to whether the assessee has earned any exempt income during the year under consideration or not and M/s. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Developers Ltd., incase, it is found that assessee has not earned any exempt income, then in that eventuality while following the judg…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…lly gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that during the year under consideration, assessee was not having any exempt income, therefore, in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest Ltd., reported in 278 ITR 33, no disallowance u/s.14A can be made. Accordingly, we do not find any merit for the disallowance so made by AO when there is no exempt income. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance. 4. In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2423/Mum/2018 is allowed. ITA No.2421/Mum/2018 & 2420/Mum/2018 (A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12) 5. In the A…

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network ACIT 16(1), Room No. 439, 4t h floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4t h Floor, A Wing, v. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AAACE7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ ACIT 16(1), Room No. 43…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network ACIT 16(1), Room No. 439, 4t h floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4t h Floor, A Wing, v. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AAACE7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ ACIT 16(1), Room No. 43…

Jt. CIT- (OSD), CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. J.M.Baxi & Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Jt.Cit(Osd), Vs. M/S. J.M. Baxi & Co., Cc-6(4), R.No.1926, 16, Bank Street, Fort 19Th Floor, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400021 Pan/Gir No. Aaafj5198E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…minvest Ltd vs ITO 317 ITR 86(AT) wherein it was held that the disallowance u/s 14A can be made even if no exempt income is actually earned or received during the year. However, this decision of Special Bench has been overruled by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court(378 ITR 33), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held categorically that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. 7.1 In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court it is held that as the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted…

Vijaydeep Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016, wherein this issue has been considered following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem invest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held as under: - 5 “On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax App…

Chamanlal Awtaney, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…mbay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016, wherein this issue has been considered and finally following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held as under: - “On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appea…

Chamanlal Awtaney, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…mbay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016, wherein this issue has been considered and finally following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held as under: - “On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appea…

Mukand Global Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukand Global Finance Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 3(2)(1) 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan Room No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan 226 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacm 8348 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.A. Gohel Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

…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]. 3 M/s. Mukand Global Finance Limited 7. 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 ca…