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 367,181 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 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

Tech Trek Rechnologies (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6602/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bletech Trek Technologies (India) Ltd., V. Ito – 1(3)(3) 1St Floor, Jeevan Sahakar, Aayakar Bhavan, Sir P.M Road, Fort, Queens Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai Pan: Aabct 6072 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…uring the Assessment Year is supported by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Delite Enterprises in ITA.No. 110 of 2003 dated 26.02.2009. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd v. CIT [378 ITR 33] and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Sivam Motors (P) Ltd. [230 Taxman 63]. In the circumstances we hold that if there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the Assessment Year there should not any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. However, if the assessee itself in the return of income made any disallowance u/s.…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Power Development Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5333/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Vs. M/s. L&T Power Development Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) L&T House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001. PAN : AABCL3867C (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Respondent by : Shri Vijay Mehta Date of Hearing : 12/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 21/03/2018 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-5, Mumbai dated 10.08.2015, pertaining to the Asses…

Sanat M. Dalal Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6461/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

…in the securities. Entire income earned on security transactions is offered to tax under the head “Business and Profession” and dividend income was an incidental income. 5. Learned AR relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest Ltd., 378 ITR 33 and argued that disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Cortech Energy Pvt. Ltd., Appeal No.239 of 2014. 6. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. Respectfully following the de…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Adhunik Alloys & Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No

ITA 207/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkeyand Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Adhunik Alloys & 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Power Ltd., Poorva, 110, 14, N.S. Road, 2Nd Floor, Shantipally, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaeca 5290 R] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Mrs. Shikha Agarwal, Aca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 16-03-2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountantmember:- This Caption Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata,In Appeal No.1042/Cit(A)/20/Cc-1(1)/15- 16, Dated 10.11.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 31.07.2015. 2.The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Facts As Well As In Law By Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.26,31,856/- Made For Delay In Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Esi & Allowing Relief Under

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ts on the said issue under consideration that where assessee has not earned any exempt income no disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D of the IT Rules, should be made. For that we rely onthe Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 317 ITD 33 (Del). That being so, we are declined to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid addition, his order on this issue is therefore upheld and the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 4.5 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No. 2) are dismissed. 5. Ground No. 3 is consequential in nature and does not re…

ITO, Ward-3(4), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Suryajyoti Infotech Ltd, Sec'Bad, Secunderabad

In the result, the ground of appeal

ITA 1278/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Suryajyoti Infotech Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Secunderabad. – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecs6875J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs. Suryajyothi Infotech 3(4), Hyderabad. Limited, Secunderabad. Pan – Aaecs6875J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri V. Siva Kumar Smt N. Swapna Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 05-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: Both Are Cross Appeals For The A.Y 2011-12, Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Hyderabad Dated 05.08.2015. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Development & Maintenance Of Computer Software, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y Suryajyothi Infotech Ltd., Secunderabad. 2011-12 On 29.09.2011, Admitting A Total Income Of Rs. 1,01,412/- After Claiming An Exemption Of Rs. 77,99,926/- U/S 10A Of The It Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, The Assessee Was Required To File Certain Details. After Verifying The Books Of Accounts & The Information Filed By The Assessee, The A.O Proposed To Make:

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…s not earned any dividend income which is exempt from tax is concerned, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., Vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 and by the Hon’ble Gujarath High Court in the case CIT Vs Corrtech Energy Pvt Ltd., reported in 372 ITR 97. Further it is also pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, that in the earlier and subsequent assessment years also, there was no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act even though the investments were made by the assessee. Therefore, resp…

Suryajyoti Infotech Ltd., Sec'Bad, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground of appeal

ITA 1241/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…pt income, therefore, as per following judicial pronouncements, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 1) The Pr. CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (Income-tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2016) (Bombay High Court – Nagpur Bench) 2) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [378 ITR 33 (Del) / 281 CTR 447 (Del)] * 3) CIT v. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 277 (All)] 12 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., 4) CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 262 (Guj)] 5) CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [272 CTR 265 (P&H)] 6) CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 282 (Del)] 7) CIT v. Delite Enterprises [ITA No. 110 of 2009 Bombay High Court) 10. On…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Subramanya Construtions & Development Company Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-

ITA 411/BANG/2017[2011 - 12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.411 & 412/Bang/2017 (Asst. Years - 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Dy. Commissinoer Of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Subramanya Constructions & Development Co Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nambirajan S Pillai, Add. Cit Respondent By : Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 1-3-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 9-3-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nambirajan S Pillai, Add. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.411 & 412/Bang/2017 (Asst. Years - 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Dy. Commissinoer of Income-tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/s Subramanya Constructions & Development Co Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nambirajan S Pillai, Add. CIT Respondent by : Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate Date of Hearing : 1-3-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 9-3-2018 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These…

Satyam Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1)/ Kolkata, Kolkata

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

ITA 2363/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2363/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Satyam Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(1),Kolkata [Pan: Aalcs 1734 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Tiwari, CIT

Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…not derived any exempt income. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard:- CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd – (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad HC) CIT vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 486 /2014 (Delhi HC) Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi HC) Hence respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we direct the ld AO to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs 1,01,658/-. Accordingly, the Grounds 6 to 8 raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. The Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee is only with regard to non-grant of credit for self assessment tax pai…

ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Kaniksha Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 927/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 927/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 927/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 I.T.O., Ward-1 (2) -vs.- M/s Kanishka Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCK 0882 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 28.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 11.3.2016 of CIT(A)- I, Kolkata, relating to AY 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by th…

M/S. Pratap Polysacks Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1527/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1527/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Pratap Polysacks Limited -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-5(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 6949 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.05.2016 Of C.I.T.(A)-2, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 6 & 7 Are General In Nature & Call For No Specific Adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows :- “2. For That The Ld. C.I.T(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.13,40,961/- Out Of Claim Of Depreciation & Additional Depreciation S= Electric Installations Being Integral Part Of Plant & Machinery & Wrongly Considered By The Ao As Electric Installations Simplicitor.” 4. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Hdpe/Pp Woven Socks & Aluminium Composite Panel. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Had Claimed 15% Of Depreciation & 20% Additional Depreciation On Additions To The Block Of Assets “Plant & Machinery” Of Rs.1,07,34,917/- & Rs.47,737/-. The Sum Of Rs.1,07,34,917/- Was The Cost Of Electrical Installations & Rs.47,737/- Was The Cost Of Fire Extinguisher. According To The Ao The Electrical Installations Were Not To Be Regarded As Plant & Machinery But Has To Be Regarded As Falling Within The Block Of Assets “Furniture & Fitting Including

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…y the assessee during the relevant previous year. 11. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CBDT Circular on which the CIT(A) placed reliance is contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITD 33 (Delhi) wherein it was held that there can be no disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act, if there is no exempt income during the relevant previous year. It was brought to our notice that the Hon’ble 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 t…

Shree Madhur Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhule vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.R. ShirudeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e assessee has also not been controverted by Revenue. On the issue that when no exempt income is received, no disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made, we find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) at para 23 of the order has noted that the expression “does not form part of total income” in Sec.14A of the Act envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which has not includable in the total income, during the year relevant to previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the sai…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Nippon Investment & Finance Company Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly upheld and these grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3043/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: None

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ed assessment year, section 14A cannot be invoked. The CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by taking into consideration the settled proposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 33 Delhi. In the absence of any new facts or circumstances brought before us to controvert or revert the findings so recorded by the CIT(A), we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is accordingly upheld and these grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. Ground No. 4 & 5 6. These grounds are ge…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM The Dy. Commissioner of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 BKC, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAACK4409J Cross Objection No. 38/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 2817/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of 27 BKC, G Block, Bandra Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai R. No. 552, 5 th Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. (…

M.Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, RG.2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3739/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 14A

…the average value of investment for computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii). In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Holesom India Pvt. Ltd., [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28 (Del.); ii) Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.); and iii) ACIT Assessing Officer v/s Vireet Investments (P) Ltd., [2017] 16 ITD 27 (Del.) (SB). 8. Finally, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, the assessee though has made disallowance u/s 14A in assessment years 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2014–15, following the manner in which it has made suo–motu disallowance under section 14A in…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Schneider Electric Conzerv India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result the ground raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6690/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2009-10 Acit, Circle 7(1) Schneider Electric Conzerv India New Delhi Vs. P Ltd. Amalgamated With Schneider Electric India P Ltd. 9Th Floor, Tower Cit(A), Phase Ii Gurgaon Pan: Aaace6272F

Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 40Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

…m part of the total income. He 17 submitted that under such circumstances no disallowance could be made under section 14 A of the act. 15.3. He placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd versus CIT reported in 378 ITR 33. 15.4. On the contrary Ld. DR placed reliance upon the decision of authorities below. 15.5. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 15.6. As assessee has not received any exempt income for the year under consideration, no disallowance is warranted for as per the decision of Hon’ble S…

Fineotex Chemical Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 5412/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.5412/Mumbai/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Finotex Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Mumbai 43/43, Manorama Chambers, S.V. Road, Bandra(West), Mumbai- 400050. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. :Aaacf8360M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Hetalmaru, Fca Respondent By :Shriv. Vidhyadgav, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjunlalsaini, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. HetalMaru, FCAFor Respondent: ShriV. Vidhyadgav, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…22 of 2013 Judgement dated 23.12.2013. In view of the aforesaid legal position we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue cannot be sustained. It has also been held by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) that when there is no exempt income then there can be no question of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the light of the judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the plea of the assesseeto exclude funds which are not generating exempt income, that is, which had not yielded any exempt dividend income during the previous year while wo…

ITO, Ward - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Progro Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1373/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1373/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward 3(1)...............................……………….....................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Room No. 17, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Progro Stocks Pvt. Ltd.,...................……………………………………………Respondent 9/2, Lalbazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aabcp 5332 J] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 1, Kolkata Dated 26.04.2017 & In The Solitary Ground Raised Therein, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 2,16,006/- Made By The A.O. Under Section 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 20.03.2013 Declaring Its Total Income At Nil. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed By The A.O. That The Assessee Company Has Made Substantial Investment In Unquoted Shares. Since The Income From The Said Investment In The Form Of Dividend Was Exempt From Tax, The Assessee Was Called Upon By The A.O. To Explain As To Why

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…the case of Cheminvest Ltd. and has held that disallowance u/s. 3 I.T.A. No. 1373/K/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Progro Stocks Pvt. Ltd. 14A cannot be made if exempt income is not received or receivable during the relevant previous year reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del). In view of the above discussion, it is observed that admittedly the income of income from other sources of Rs,2,58,000/- disclosed by the appellant company was not in the nature of any exempt income or by way of dividend. In view of the factual matrix of the case and the ratio of the cited case laws i.e. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the…

D.C.I.T Circle - 5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shubh Shanti Services Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1750/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1750/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Subh Shanti Services Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 9381 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…wance under second and third limb thereon and computed the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs. 1,24,76,183/-. The Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Invest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 among other High Court decisions held that since no exempt income has been received by the assessee, the provisions of section 14A of the Act could not be invoked. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving relief of Rs. 1,24,76,…

Vakkash Capital Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4919/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vakkash Capital Co. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-14(3)(1), Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, 141, Mittal Tower, Vs. C Wing, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Aaccv 0990R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha, D.R

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…invested by purchasing substantial number of shares thereby securing right to management. Assessee had incurred for expenditure for business in form of investment in shares of cement companies. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Chem Investment vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 wherein it is held that if the assessee has made strategic investment and no exempt income was earned by the assessee in relevant year and since the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not in doubt, no disallowance can be made. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 65 SOT 86 (Mumbai…