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 367,181 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

J.M. Baxi & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the aforementioned years are dismissed

ITA 4044/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 J.M. Baxi& Co., The Deputy Commissioner 16, Bank Street, Fort, Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Mumbai-400001. Circle-6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaafj51698E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of J.M. Baxi& Co., Income Tax, Central Circle- 16, Bank Street, Fort, Vs. 6(4), Mumbai-400001. Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaafj51698E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 J.M. Baxi& Co., The Deputy Commissioner 16, Bank Street, Fort, of Income Tax, Central Vs. Mumbai-400001. Circle-6(4), Room No. 1925, 19th floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAAFJ51698E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of J.M. Baxi& Co., Income Tax, Central Circle- 16, Bank…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Shri Ankush Gupta, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 924/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka(Advocate)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 924/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income- Shri Ankush Gupta Vs. tax Circle-1, Kota D-28, New Colony Gumanpura, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKFPG4060R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Si…

Dciat 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sundaram Multipap Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5327/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…sessee is supported by the decisions rendered by different High Courts as detailed below:- 1. PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited [ITA No. 51 of 2016 (Bombay High Court)] 2. M/s Redington India Ltd v. Addl. CIT [392 ITR 633 (Mad)] 3. Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [281 CTR 447 (Del)] 4. CIT v. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 277 (All)] 5. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 262 (Guj)] 6. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [272 CTR 265 (P&H)] 7. CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd, [272 CTR 282 (Del)] 8. CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (319 ITR 204 P&H) 9. CIT v. Delite Enterprises [ITA No. 110 of 2009 (Bombay High Cour…

M/S. Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 636/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

…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. In this regard, 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 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 exempt income includible in the total income of the assessee, the p…

M/S. Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 622/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

…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. In this regard, 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 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 exempt income includible in the total income of the assessee, the p…

M/S. Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 596/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

…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. In this regard, 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 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 exempt income includible in the total income of the assessee, the p…

M/S Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 581/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

…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. In this regard, 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 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 exempt income includible in the total income of the assessee, the p…

ACIT, C-5(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Indrason Precision Engineering (P) Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 1653/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri K.S. Bains, Addl CITFor Respondent: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate
Section 14A

…e numerous decisions of the 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), 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 and various other case laws. In all the above referred to case laws, the Hon'ble High Courts have been unanimo…

ACIT, C-5(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Indrason Precision Engineering (P) Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 1652/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri K.S. Bains, Addl CITFor Respondent: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate
Section 14A

…e numerous decisions of the 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), 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 and various other case laws. In all the above referred to case laws, the Hon'ble High Courts have been unanimo…

DCIT CC 5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT CC-36), Mumbai vs. Shree Krishna Silk Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2014-2015

ITA 7332/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Central Cir. 5(3), M/S Shree Krishna Silk Industries Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building, 2Nd Floor, Kamat Indl. Estate, Nariman Point, Vs. Veer Sawarkar Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacs5165K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)
Section 143Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The DCIT, Central Cir. 5(3), M/s Shree Krishna Silk Industries Room No. 1906, 19th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building, 2nd Floor, Kamat Indl. Estate, Nariman Point, Vs. Veer Sawarkar Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 PAN: AAACS5165K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR) Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor (AR) Date of Hearing: 11/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 18/04/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM The revenue has filed the pre…

Essel Propack Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 581/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Essel Propack Ltd. Dy. Cit-6(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Top Floor, Times Tower, Kamla City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 642/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Dy. Cit-6(3)(2) M/S. Essel Propack Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 14Section 14A

…uly offered the same for taxation. As regards the investment in domestic companies, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that no dividend income has been earned. He submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del) is in favour of the assessee. He submitted that in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 5312/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2009-10, this tribunal has adjudicated this issue by holding as under: M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. 3. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal for A.Y.2008-09 dated 11/09/2017, wherein both the issues r…

Bijman Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 158/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri B. Satyanarayana Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the case Prathista Industries Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No. of 1302/Hyd/2015 dated 29-04-2016, directed to delete the disallowance since there is no income claiming exemption during the year. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., in (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del) and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT in TCA No. 520/2016 dt. 26-06-2015 have held that the disallowance u/s. 14A cannot be made where there is no exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited, Nizamabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1798/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Indur Avenues & Income Tax, Foods Private Limited Central Circle 2(3) Nizamabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabci0260Q (Appellant) (Responden)

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Smt. B. Vishnu Priya, DR
Section 119Section 14A

…IT (A) deleted the disallowance on the ground that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington Co. in T.C.A.No.520 of 2016 dated 8.11.2016. Since the order of the CIT (A) is in consonance with the precedents of the issue, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). Respectfully following the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Madras High Court (Supra)…

Pitti Electrical Equipment Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Pitti Electrical Vs Income Tax Officer Equipment Private Ltd Ward 16 ( 4 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Pitti Electrical Equipment Income Tax, Circle 16(2) Private Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Laxmi Nivas SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Pratista Industries Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.1302/Hyd/2015 dated 29.4.2015 to delete the disallowance on this ground. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd vs. Add. CIT in T.C.A.No.520 of 2016, dated 26th June, 2015 have held that the disallowance 14A cannot be made where there is no exempt income during the relevant A.Y. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) on this issue. 10. As regards t…

DCIT CIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6659/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6659/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Mahindra Cie Automotive Limited Circle-7(2)(1) (The Merged Entity Of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd) 74,Ganesh Apartment Room No.338,3Rd Floor बनाम/ Opp.Sitladevi Temple Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road Vs. Lady Jamshedji Road, Mahim Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacm-4998-G/Aabcm-6632-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.96/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mahindra Cie Automotive Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (The Merged Entity Of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd) Income Tax Range-6(3) बनाम/ Mahindra Towers,1St Floor Room No.573,5Th Floor Vs. Dr.G.M.Bhosale Marg, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcm-6632-J/Aaacm-4998-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: H.P.Mahajani & Prasad Bapat,Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…e find that in catena of various judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble High Courts, it has been held that disallowance u/s 14A could not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. To cite a few:- (i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015 378 ITR 33] (ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015 372 ITR 694] (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. [2015 57 Taxmann.com 28] (iv) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. IL&FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. [84 Taxmann.com 186 dated 16/08/2017] (v) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in PCIT Vs Empire…

M/S. Maa Group Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2584/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 154

…ble on pages 33 to 94 of case law compilation. In the said Tribunal order, we find that in para 10 of this Tribunal order, the Tribunal has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody as reported in 115 ITR 519 and it was held as per para 11.16 that only those investments are to be considered for computing the average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. Respectfully following this Tr…

ACIT, CC-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Adhunik Metaliks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1934/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1934/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Cc-1(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. [Pan: Aabcn 5676 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shikha Agarwal, ACA
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d is placed on following decisions of various High Courts: i) CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. reported in [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221(Mad HC); ii) CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 486/Kol/2014 (Del HC); iii) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del C); iv) CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 970/Kol/2008 dated 02.04.2014(P&H HC); v) CIT vs. Corntech Energy Pvt. Ltd. reported in 223 taxmann.com 133 (Guj HC); vi) CIT vs. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 88 of 2014 (All) vii) PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development company Ltd. reported in [2017] 399 ITR 483 (Del). Respectfully…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kamarhatty Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

ITA 2080/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…2 by way of dividendtherefore unless there is a receipt of exempt income for the concerned assessment year, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be made. For that, we rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi) wherein it was held that if the assessee does not receive dividend income or exempt income, the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D is not warranted. Besides, the coordinate Bench of 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 previ…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Med Plus Health Services Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1528/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.D.N.V. Lakshmi PavanFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o allowed the same by following the ITAT orders in the case of Prathista Industries Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.1302/Hyd/2015 for the A.Y 2011-12 wherein it has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) to hold that section 14A will not apply where no exempt income is received or is receivable during the relevant A.Y. Observing that the assessee has no dividend income during the relevant A.Y, the CIT (A) deleted the disallowance against which the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities bel…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Med Plus Health Services Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1527/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.D.N.V. Lakshmi PavanFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o allowed the same by following the ITAT orders in the case of Prathista Industries Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.1302/Hyd/2015 for the A.Y 2011-12 wherein it has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) to hold that section 14A will not apply where no exempt income is received or is receivable during the relevant A.Y. Observing that the assessee has no dividend income during the relevant A.Y, the CIT (A) deleted the disallowance against which the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities bel…