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

Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7543/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7543, 7544, 7515 & 7546/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Capital Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Advisors P. Ltd, 47A, 3Rd R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Floor, Plot No. 308 Air India Building, Vs. Hanuman Bldg, Perin Nariman Point, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacr2791N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…casion to disallow any expenses in context of such investments which had not yielded any tax free income during the year. The ld. A.R in support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). 26. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We shall before adverting to the controversy in hand, refer to ITA Nos. 7543-7544/Mum/2016, ITA No. 7515/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 7546/Mum/2016 27 Anand Rathi Capital Advisors P. Ltd. vs. DCIT…

Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7527 & 7526/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2014-15) M/S Anand Rathi Global Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Finance Ltd., 4Th Floor, R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Silver Metropolis Bldg., Air India Building, Vs. Western Express Highway, Nariman Point, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aabcr1136N (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 153A

…casion to disallow any expenses in context of such investments which had not yielded any tax free income during the year. The ld. A.R in support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del). 19. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We shall before adverting to the controversy in hand, refer to Rule 8D as had been made available on the statute vide the Income-tax (Fifth amendment) Rules, 2008, w.e.f 24.03.2008, which…

Varsha Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7492/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.7492/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Varsha Corporation Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- Varsha 13 Adarsh Society, 13(3)(2), Ramchandra Lane Extension, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Malad (West), Mubai – 400 064. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aabcv2293E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari - Dr Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Rajora सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03/01/2018 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर क" धारा आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd. 28/10/2016 Of The Cit(A)-21,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Import & Trading In Plastic Raw Materials, Chemicals & Trading In Bullion,Filed Its Return Of Income On, 27/09/2013,Declaring Income Of Rs.2,83,12,120/-The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment On 24/11/ 2015, U/S.14A3(3)Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 2.84 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari - DR
Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ng group entities,that the administrative and interest expenses were incurred for carrying out its normal business activity,that the no part of expenses could be considered as eligible to earning of exempt income.He relied upon the cases of Cheminvest Limited(378 ITR 33), Ballarpur Industries Ltd (ITA No. 51 of 2016 of the honorable High Court, Nagpur bench)and Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. (49 CCH 50).The Departmental Representative(DR) supported the order of the AO and the FAA. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that during the year under consideration the assess…

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Cig Realty Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1197/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blethe Assistant Commissioner V. M/S. Cig Realty Fund Of Income –Tax – 18(1) C/O D.M. Harish & Co., Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor 305-309, Nilkanth Earnest House, Nariman Point 98, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 002 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan : Aaatc 7307 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Mrugakshi K. Joshi Department By : Shri Saurabh Despande

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi K. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Despande
Section 14A

…a P. Ltd. [90 CCH 0081] held that if there is no dividend income earned by the assessee, section 14A cannot be invoked. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited v. CIT [378 ITR 33] and submits that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that if no dividend income is earned there should not be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 3. Ld.DR strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The issue before us is wh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Manpower Group Services India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Manpower Services India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2312/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2312/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs M/S Manpower Group Services India Circle-16(1), Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As New Delhi Manpower Services India Pvt. Ltd.), 371, Aggarwal Millennium Tower-Ii, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm6914F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.12.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 25.02.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…assessee by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21.05.2015. 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT-IV (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) 8. Now the department is in appeal. 9. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and the material on record. In the present case, the contention of the assessee that no exempt income was received during the year under consideration has not rebutted. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Jainco Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 755/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2017AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 755/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2014-15 cuke Assistant Commissioner M/s Jainco Enterprises Pvt. Vs. of Income Tax, Ltd., 592, Welcome Tower, Circle-1, Kota. Dadabari, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCJ 6381 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : N…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1708/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Singla, CA
Section 14A

…lowance u/s 14A on the ground that there was no exempt income. We find this issue to be squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the 2 ITA-1707 & 1708/Del/2015 case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), wherein their Lordships held as under :- “Held, that no exempted income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year and since the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made under section 14A.” 4. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictiona…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1707/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Singla, CA
Section 14A

…lowance u/s 14A on the ground that there was no exempt income. We find this issue to be squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the 2 ITA-1707 & 1708/Del/2015 case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), wherein their Lordships held as under :- “Held, that no exempted income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year and since the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made under section 14A.” 4. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictiona…

M/S Ub Infrastructure Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2098/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Miss. Girija G. P, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT
Section 14ASection 234B

…assessee during the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the provisions of section 14A cannot be invoked. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v . CIT as reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del) and also the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 3. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below, we find that undisputedly the assessee has not earned any exempted income. Now it is settled position of law that whenever assess…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hema Engineering Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue stand dismissed

ITA 747/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09 Dcit M/S Hema Engineering Circle 11(1) Vs. Industries Ltd. New Delhi Sachidanand Farm House Kishan Garh Village (Near Dda Sports Complex) In Front Of Swimming Pool Lane Green Avenue Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaach0118F A N D In Ita No. 1803/Del/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 Dcit Moser Bare Solar Ltd. Circle 17(1) Vs. 43B, Okhla Indl. Estate New Delhi Phase Iii New Delhi Pan: Aaecp 1955A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. Respondent By None Appeared Date Of Hearing 19/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2017

Section 14Section 14A

…nder consideration. 3. We have perused the relevant material on record in both the appeals before us, and find that this issue stands settled in favour of assessee by the Hon’ble judicial High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd versus CIT (2015) reported in 378 ITR 33 wherein it has been held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance under section 14 A. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble judicial High Court in the case Page 2 of 3 of CIT versus Holcim India Pvt. Ltd vide order dated 05/09/14 in ITA No. 486/2014 and 299/2014. 3.1. In view of these binding p…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gvk Project and Technical Services Ltd., Secunderabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4217/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 14A

…has not earned any exempt income during the year, disallowance is being made as the income as and when received would be exempted. In appeal Ld. CIT (A) while following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) held that if there is no exempt income there can be no question of making any disallowance. He, therefore, deleted the addition made on this account for both the assessment years. Hence, Revenue is in this appeal. 3. Ld. DR argued that Ld. CIT (A) was not right in ignoring the Board Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 while deleting…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gvk Project and Technical Services Ltd., Secunderabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4216/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 14A

…has not earned any exempt income during the year, disallowance is being made as the income as and when received would be exempted. In appeal Ld. CIT (A) while following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) held that if there is no exempt income there can be no question of making any disallowance. He, therefore, deleted the addition made on this account for both the assessment years. Hence, Revenue is in this appeal. 3. Ld. DR argued that Ld. CIT (A) was not right in ignoring the Board Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 while deleting…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Moser Baer Solar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1803/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09 Dcit M/S Hema Engineering Circle 11(1) Vs. Industries Ltd. New Delhi Sachidanand Farm House Kishan Garh Village (Near Dda Sports Complex) In Front Of Swimming Pool Lane Green Avenue Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaach0118F A N D In Ita No. 1803/Del/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 Dcit Moser Bare Solar Ltd. Circle 17(1) Vs. 43B, Okhla Indl. Estate New Delhi Phase Iii New Delhi Pan: Aaecp 1955A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. Respondent By None Appeared Date Of Hearing 19/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2017

Section 14Section 14A

…nder consideration. 3. We have perused the relevant material on record in both the appeals before us, and find that this issue stands settled in favour of assessee by the Hon’ble judicial High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd versus CIT (2015) reported in 378 ITR 33 wherein it has been held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance under section 14 A. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble judicial High Court in the case Page 2 of 3 of CIT versus Holcim India Pvt. Ltd vide order dated 05/09/14 in ITA No. 486/2014 and 299/2014. 3.1. In view of these binding p…

ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi vs. Rajat Fincap P.Ltd, Faridabad

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

ITA 4897/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Vs. Rajat Fincap Pvt. Ltd., Ward-21(1), 565, Sector 7B, New Delhi. Faridabad. Pan: Aaccr3828A Assessee By : Shri Somil Aggarwal & Shri Lakshya, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal &
Section 14A

…o exempt income was earned. 4. Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, I find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del), wherein it has been held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC. In view of these binding precedents providing for not making any disallowance u/s 14A in the a…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 vs. Bhushan Energy Ltd

ITA/1157/2017HC Delhi19 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 14A

…y the assessee. The ITAT in the impugned judgment granted complete relief to the assessee on the strength of the two judgments of this Court, i.e., Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) and Cheminvest Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 33. This Court is of the opinion that the entire exempt income in the present case was purely incidental, consequent of the deployment of surplus funds for a part of the period. The findings of the CIT (A) clearly point to the fact that the assessee had utilised the entire borrowed funds for the purpose of setting up of its plan and undertak…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 vs. Bhushan Energy Ltd

ITA/1158/2017HC Delhi19 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 14A

…y the assessee. The ITAT in the impugned judgment granted complete relief to the assessee on the strength of the two judgments of this Court, i.e., Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) and Cheminvest Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 33. This Court is of the opinion that the entire exempt income in the present case was purely incidental, consequent of the deployment of surplus funds for a part of the period. The findings of the CIT (A) clearly point to the fact that the assessee had utilised the entire borrowed funds for the purpose of setting up of its plan and undertak…

Hughes Network System India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3019/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2010-11

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is no exempt income during the year under consideration. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT - [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find this issue to be covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in th…

M/S Value Point Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result Ground.7 of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 376/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A No.376/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. B. T. Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nder consideration and therefore no expenditure can be disallowed by the AO by invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s.14A. The Ld. AR relies upon the judgment ITA.376/Bang/2017 Page - 4 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [378 ITR 33]. 05. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relies upon the order passed by the lower authorities. 06. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The AO in para 5 records that the total investment as on 31.03.2011 was Rs.1,37,70,000/-. However no dividend income was declared during the previous year by this company, hence the assessee d…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Kesar Marble and Granite Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1392/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Suryawanshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10Section 14A

…assessee during the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the provisions of section 14A cannot be invoked. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v . CIT as reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del). 3. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 4. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below, we find that undisputedly 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.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3124/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14ASection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. M/s. Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Circle-15(2), R. No. 306, 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, C.R. Building, New Delhi Rouse Avenue, New Delhi PAN : AAACL7300H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Subhakant Sahu, Sr.DR Respondent by None Date of hearing 11.12.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.12.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 22/03/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax…