How many judgments cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT?

1,569 judgments on BharatTax cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 33), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 8D, Section 115JB, Section 250, Section 1961.

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 14A Section 143(3)Section 8D Section 115JB Section 250 Section 1961 Section 37(1)Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14a disallowance under section 14a section 14a section 36(1)(iii)section 115jb revenue expenditure section 37(1)section 37 section 36 previous year scrutiny assessment section 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 4302/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S. Essel Utilities Distribution Co. Ltd., V. 6(2)(1) 135 Continental Building Room No. 504, 5Th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadce 1449 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 115JSection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax– M/s. Essel Utilities Distribution Co. Ltd., v. 6(2)(1) 135 Continental Building Room No. 504, 5th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AADCE 1449 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi

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

ITA 4417/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 14Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT M/s. Oil Industry Development Circle – 52 (1) Vs Board, 301, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi PAN No. AAAJO0032A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR Respondent by Sh. Sushil Kumar Gupta, CA Date of hearing: 06/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 02.05.2016 of the CIT(A)-18, New Delhi r…

M/S. Sofcom Systems Ltd, D-36, Subhash Marg, Flat No.802, Sheel Mohar Apartment, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 258/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 M/s. Sofcom Systems Ltd. cuke I.T.O., Vs. D-36, Subhash Marg, Flat No. Ward-6(4), 802, Sheel Mohar Apartments, Alwar C-Scheme, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS4859A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) lq…

M/S. Deccan Emerging Business, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1568/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Deccan Emerging Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Old No. 148, New No. 43, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Embassy Square, Vs. Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1 [1] [1], Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl6112B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 14ASection 234A

…ACIT in ITA No. 1055/Bang/2017 dated 03.11.2017. He submitted a copy of this Tribunal order and pointed out that in this case, the Tribunal followed the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). He also submitted that in the same Tribunal order, the Tribunal has also considered the applicability of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Page 5 of 5 Commissioner of Income-tax. He also pointed out in para 22 of this Tribunal order, it is noted by the Tribunal that in that case i.e. Maxopp I…

M/S Arisudana Industries Ltd, Ludhiana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as partly allowed

ITA 10/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.10/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Sunil K. Mukhi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Meenakshi Vohra, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 43(5)

…e outset, the Ld.Counsel for the asssessee has submitted that the assessee during the year has earned tax exempt dividend income of Rs.28,133/- only. That as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del), the total disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the total tax e xempt income earned by the assessee. The reliance in this respect has been placed on the decisions of various High Courts including that of the Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Winsome Textiles’ (2009) 319 ITR 204 (P&H), and o…

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Bbf Industries Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby allowed

ITA 1263/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1263/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Sr DR

Section 14A

…ional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Winsome Textiles’ (2009) 319 ITR 204 (P&H) and in the case of CIT Faridabad v. Lakhani Marketing INC 226 Taxmann 45 (P&H); Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Cheminvest Ltd Vs. ITO’ (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. (2014) 45 Taxman.com 116’ and further of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd’ (2014) 272 CTR (All) 277. 5. Since the assessee did not earn any tax exempt income, hence, no disallowance u/s 14A is attracted. In vie…

M/S. C.S. Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.2 of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4111/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath And Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

…be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year.” 11. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that addition is wholly unjustified. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del.) held “that no exempted income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year and since genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made under section 14A.” In the present case, assessee specifically submitted before the authorities below that investment was made in shares an…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mercury Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2242/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Date of hearingFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…the revenue) vide order dated 18/07/2018 (wherein both the Members are party), similar ground raised by the revenue was dismissed upholding the order of CIT(A), who followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del.), deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A. Mercury Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 10. As the grounds and facts in AY 2013-14 are materially identical to that of AY 2014-15 (supra), following the decision therein, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mercury Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2226/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Date of hearingFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. P.G. Foils Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2466/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2466/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, A.R

Section 14ASection 36Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2466/AHD/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/s P.G. Foils Ltd., Circle-3(1)(1), Vs. 6, Neptune Towers, Ahmedabad. Opp. Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedbad. PAN: AAACP9274C (Applicant) (Respondent) : Revenue by Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Nahata, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED,…

The Dy. CIT, Circle -4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1494/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1494/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/S.Gujarat State Financial Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. Corporation, Ahmedabad. 1St Floor, Block No.10 Udhyog Bhavan, Gandhinagar.

For Appellant: Shri P.F Jain, A.R

Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1494/AHD/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/s.Gujarat State Financial Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. Corporation, Ahmedabad. 1st Floor, Block NO.10 Udhyog Bhavan, Gandhinagar. PAN: AABCG2924M (Applicant) (Respondent) : Revenue by Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT,D.R Assessee by : Shri P.F Jain, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM…

Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3184/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip

Section 14A

…Therefore, disallowance under Rule–8D(2)(iii) has to be computed on the investment of ` 5,39,000. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) ACB India Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Del.); ii) Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT 2015, 378 ITR 33 (Del.); and iii) CIT v/s Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., 165 ITD (SB) 27 (Del.). 7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned Authorised Representative submitted, under no circumstances, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act can exceed exempt income earned during the year. For such proposition, he relied upon the following deci…

Dy. C.I.T. - 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ami Polymer Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed in term of the above

ITA 7401/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7401/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of Ami Polymer Pvt. Ltd. Income, A-104, 1St Floor, Circle-12(1)(1), Panchsheel Heights, Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Dahanukarwadi, Mumbai-20 Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400 067 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaeca6387P अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ms. Jhankhana Shah, Ms. Zankhana Sanghvi, Ars’ ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3210/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Advocate

Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 80I

…uring the year under consideration. Thus this grievance of the assessee has to be allowed following the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 121 ITD 318 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 378 ITR 33 [DEL]. Similar view was taken in 399 ITR 483 and by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 97. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.55,870/-. Ground No. 2 is allowed.” 8. As no distinguishing fact has come to our notice respectfully following th…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Chintalapati Holding Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1526/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Chintalapati Holdings Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 18, Software Units Layout, Ilabs Centre Building-3, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aabcc 5085 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Rajavenkat – CAFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri – DR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2012- 13 is reproduced hereunder:- “6. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions:- 1. Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.) (Mrs. A.V.N.C. High School) 2. CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj.) 3. CIT vs. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 272 CTR 299 (All.) 4. CIT vs. Wilsome Textile Industries 319 ITR 204 (P & H) 5. ACIT vs. M. Baskaran [2014] 50 Taxmann. com 138 6.1 Respectfully following the same, we hold that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lavasa Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3491/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ered for the purpose of making disallowance under rule 8D by relying on a series of decisions namely; 1. Pr. CIT vs. Zee News Ltd. in ITA No.785 & 789/M/2015 2. Pr. CIT vs. Rivian International Pvt. LTd. (ITXA No.693 of 2015) 3. Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) 4. ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Del) Similarly, the Ld. A.R. also submitted that expenditure which is already capitalized can not be taken into account for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act as same would amount to double disallowance which is not permitted under the Act as h…

Jatashiv Plaza Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1898/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Jatashiv Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward – 6(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aaccj 7969 G] Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…n this assessment year and, therefore, since there was no exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by mechanically applying Rule 8D, for that I rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT 378 ITR 33 and delete the disallowance of Rs. 6,58,000/-. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15 May, 2019 (Aby. T. Varkey) Judicial Member Dated : 15 May, 2019 Biswajit (Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – M/s. Jatashiv Plaza Private Limited, C/o. RSVPC & Company, 41A, A.J.…

Laxmiwan Shoppers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1897/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1897/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Laxmiwan Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward – 6(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aaccl 2322 H] Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…s 1,46,032/-and, therefore, since there was no exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act resorted to by applying mechanically Rule 8D for that I rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT 378 ITR 33 and delete the disallowance of Rs. 5,80,953/-. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15 May, 2019 (Aby. T. Varkey) Judicial Member Dated : 15 May, 2019 Biswajit (Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – M/s. Laxmiwan Shoppers Private Limited, C/o. RSVPC & Company, 41A, A.J…

DCIT CC 3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World Wind Farms (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in both the cases are dismissed

ITA 119/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील सुं./I.T.A. No.119 & 122/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 बिाम/ Dcit Cc 3(1) M/S. Wind World Wind R.No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Air Farms (India) Ltd., India Building, Nariman A-9, Enercon Tower, V. Point, Mumbai 400021 Veera Desai Road, Veera Indl. Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan:Aaace3530A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By: Shri. A.K Ghosh स िवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramlal Negi, Jm: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against Two Orders Dated 10.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- 51 In Respect Of Two Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Orders Dated 20.04.2015. Since The Facts Of The Case & The Issues Involved Are Identical In Both The Appeals. The Same Were Clubbed Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common & Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri. A.K GhoshFor Respondent: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…t, Nagpur Bench 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 Appeal…

M/S.Golflinks Software Park (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 339/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…ly the assessee has not earned any exempted income. Now it is settled position of law that whenever assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance could be made u/s. 14A of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del) has categorically held that section 14A envisages that there should be actual receipt of ITA Nos.333 to 339/Bang/2017 & IT(TP)A 384/Bang/2017 Page 30 of 32 income which was not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure in relation to the said income. Wherever there is no…