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 367,154 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

Hershey India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 1409/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 80M

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ जेजेजेजे” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“J”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1409/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Her…

Mansarover Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 4193/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M/S Mansarover Builders (Pvt) Ltd. Dcit/Acit, 48/12, Commercial Centre, Circle-6(1), Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri Room No. 413, Vs. New Delhi- 110021 C. R. Building, New Delhi Pan : Aaacm6591R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Bhalla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ction 14A of the Act. 23. In the light of above discussion, we direct Ld. AO to recompute disallowance under section 14A restricting to exempt income only as per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Cheminvest Ltd versus CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 and Maxop Investment Ltd.Vs. CIT(A) reported in 203 Taxman 364. 24. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2006-07 stands partly allowed. Assessment year 2008-09 ITA No. 85/Del/12 The grounds raised by assessee in this appeal are as unde…

Arjav Diamonds (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 7467/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Vs. Acit – 5(1), Mumbai Ltd., 314, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43Section 43(5)

…pect of interest expenditure. He further argued that disallowance u/s.14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. For this proposition, he relied on the following judicial pronouncements. 1. Cheminvest Ltd., 378 ITR 33 2. Joint Investments v. CIT (372 ITR 694 (Del) 3. Indus Valley Investments v DCIT being ITA No.3763/Del/2013 for A.Y.2009-10 dated 29/04/2015 4. M/s. Daga Global Chemicals vs. Asst. CIT being ITA No.5592/Mum/2012 dated 01/01/2015. 5. M/s. Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd., v Dy. CIT being ITA No.8581/Mum/2011 for A.Y.2008-09 dated 24/02/2016. 5. We have…

Aryadoot Transport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7078/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh TrivediFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju

Section 14A

…learned Counsel pleaded that no disallowance u/s 14A should be done. For this proposition, the learned Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon several decisions including that of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [(2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi)] and the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 257 (Madras)]. In the light of these case laws, the learned Counsel pleaded that no disallowance u/s 14A is permissible. 4. Upon careful consideration, I note that the authorities below have relied upon a Special Bench case of the I…

D.D. Cotton P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2743/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri SL JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण " जी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2743/MUM/2015, (A.Y : 2011-12) M/s D.D.Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Cir 3(1) 86, Maker Chamber Aayakar Bhavan VI 220, Jamnadas Bajaj Marg 6th Floor, Queens Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN : AAACD4819K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant by : Shri SL Jain प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/02/2017 घोषणा की तारी…

M/S. Narayani Sons. Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, CC-Xxx, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Shikha Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Dutta, Addl. CIT. Sr.DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…/2014 M/s. Narayani Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 3 9. 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…

Lodha Hi-Rise Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2872/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deym/S. Lodha Hi-Rise Builders P. Ltd. Dcit, Circle- 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Chamber, Cawasji Patel Roa Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Horniman Circle, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aabcl2637A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri J. Mohammed Rizwan

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…incurred in this regard and therefore no disallowance under section 14A of the Act could have been made. In support of this proposition, the learned A.R. of the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (378 ITR 33 (Del.) (ii) Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. vs. Add, CIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012) (iii) Vakrangee Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6988/Mum/2014 dated 10.08.2016) 4.12 It was also contended in ground Nos. 5 & 6 (supra) that the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that since the investments were made in subsidiary group concerns for the purpose of control and no…

Lodha Bulders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2871/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deym/S. Lodha Builders P. Ltd. Dcit, Circle- 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Chamber, Cawasji Patel Roa Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Horniman Circle, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacl1722F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri J. Mohammed Rizwan

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…incurred in this regard and therefore no disallowance under section 14A of the Act could have been made. In support of this proposition, the learned A.R. of the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (378 ITR 33 (Del.) (ii) Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. vs. Add, CIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012) (iii) Vakrangee Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6988/Mum/2014 dated 10.08.2016) 4.1.2 It was also contended in ground Nos. 4 & 5 (supra) that the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that since the investments were made in subsidiary group concerns for the purpose of control and n…

A.C.I.T. Central Circle - 33, Mumbai vs. Eskay Knit (India) Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad: (A.Y : 2008-09) Acit, Central Circle-33, Vs. M/S. Eskay Knit (India) Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Ground Floor, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan : Aabcs1363G (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri M.N. NandgaokarFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…e rival counsels have been heard. At the outset, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that in the instant case no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is merited in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., 378 ITR 33 (Del). It is canvassed that in the instant year assessee has not received any exempt income, an aspect which was brought out before the Assessing Officer, and duly noted in the assessment order at page 5. It was contended that in the absence of any receipt of exempt income, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court comes into play, which prescr…

Eskay Knit (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Central Circle 37, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.N. NandgaokarFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4941/Del/2012 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 2823/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 14A

…smuch as admittedly, no separate accounts are being maintained in respect of the expenditure incurred in respect of the income exempt from tax. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT VS. Holcim India P Ltd 272 CTR 282 and Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held that where no exempted income was earned by the assessee in the relevfgant assessment year no disallowance could be made under section 14A of the Act. Further, at the same time in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Joint Investments P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the…

M/S. Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4941/Del/2012 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 4941/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 14A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4941/Del/2012 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 4736/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 14A

Raghukul Trading Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singvi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ssessee has made investment in shares; this itself warrants disallowance u/s 14A. 4. Before us the Learned Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that there should be an actual receipt of income which is not included in total income and when there is no exempt income then disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made. On the other hand the ld. DR relied upon the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals). 5. After considering the relevant finding given in the…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: R P Meena

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…e u/s 14A of the Act ignoring the ratio of the Tribunal in Cheminvest Ltd. (121 ITD 318)(Del.). The crux of argument on behalf of the assessee is that no income was earned by the assessee and merely hypothetical disallowance has been made. Reliance was placed 378 ITR 33 (Del.) order dated 02/09/2015. Considering the totality of facts and the arguments from both sides, we find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid order dated 02/09/2015 held that where no exempt income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment years and since the genuineness of expenditure is not in doubt, there is no ques…

M/S, Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3805/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. R. Santhanam, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…was contended before us that only those investments should be considered for taking value of investment, on which dividend has been earned. Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33. 15. At the outset, Ld. DR does not object for issue being set aside to Ld. AO to decide it is in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., (supra). Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside this issue to Ld. AO ITA No. 1779/Del/2013 with a direction to recomputed disallowance under section 14A read with R…

DCIT Cir. 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. White Pearl Hotels & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2340/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, White Pearl Hotels & 6Th Room No. 609, Floor, Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 4/27, Frist Floor, Kamal Mumbai-20 Mansion, Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba Mumbai-400 005 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaacw0011E Revenue By .. Shri B. Satyanarayan Raju, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Ishwar P. Rathor, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 12-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 12-04-2017

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…2020-11 in ITA No. 4313 and 4314/Mum/2014 vide order dated 23-11-2015 and also in ITA No. 7519/Mum/2014 for AY 2011-12 dated 24-08-16 has deleted the disallowance by following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del). 4. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has clearly held that there should be actual receipt of income which is not included in the total income of the assessee during the relevant previous year relevant to AY under consideration for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure in relation to that income by invoking the provisions of Sectio…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Kaytee Corporation P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is Partly

ITA 2277/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 14A

…s in appeal before us. 9. We have both the counsel and perused the records. We find that assessee has not earned any exempt income in the present assessment year. Hence on the basis of Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (378 ITR 33), since no exempt income has been earned no disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) is liable to be made. However, in this case CIT(A) has affirmed the disallowance of Rs.69,140/-. In this view of the matter revenue cannot have any grievance. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Apropos Ground No…

Phool Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground Nos

ITA 2901/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiphool Singh, Vs. Acit, 147, Harsukh Apartment, Circle-38(1), Sec-7, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aatps3016K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…in the ld DR could not point out any exempt income. From the profit and loss account of the assessee also it is evident that assessee has not claimed any income under exemption. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd Vs. Cit 378 ITR 33 wherein, it has been held that no disallowance can be made where no exemption is claimed. Therefore, in view of the above decision we direct AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 91847/- u/s 14A of the Act. In the result ground, No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. Ground No. 5 to 10 of the appeal of the assessee are against disallow…

Sh. Ram Kishan Dass, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3647/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Kishan Dass, Vs. Acit, Prop M/S. Bishan Saroop Ram Circle-20(1), Kishan, New Delhi 25/75, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aaepd0805G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 140ASection 14ASection 154Section 249

…he addition it is submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt income and therefore the provisions of section 14 A do not apply. He Page 3 of 4 referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest limited versus CIT (2015)[ 378 ITR 33] to hold that when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act cannot be made. He therefore submitted that on oth counts order of Ld. CIT appeal is not sustainable. 5. The Ld. senior departmental representative vehemently contested that the assessee has not appeared before the Ld. CIT appe…