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 366,470 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

DCIT 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rama Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1857/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist-Sr.A.R

Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “डी” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“D”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1857/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-3(3) M/s. Rama Industries Ltd. Room No.609, 6th Floor, Aayakar 812, Raheja Chambers Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. PAN: AAACR 5096 C आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 1858 /Mum/2013,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनध…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6726/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40a

…77 /Mum/2014 future, therefore, it cannot be held that no disallowance should be made and this was not the intention of the Legislature. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 13. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned orders, we find that, it is an admitted fact that, assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. This fact has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the following manner: “3.4 Further the Authorized Representative submitted that the disallowances so made of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…/s. Delite Enterprises (Bombay High Court) [ITA No/ 110/2009] (dtd. 26.02.2009), f) REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) [ITA No.1331 & 1423/Kol/2011] (vii) He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited V CIT 378 ITR 33 ( del) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court, reversing the decision of Special Bench of ITAT, has held that if there is no income from investments no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. Based on this decision, he submitted that on strategic investment in shares of private limited companies, the assesse company earned no exempt income in the relevant previ…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

India Debt Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7518/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J P Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp) A No. : 7518/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) इं"डया डै"ट मैनेजम"ट "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), India Debt Management Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, 45, 4The Floor, Maker Cambers Vi, Mumbai -400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 "थयी लेखा सं.:Pan: Aaact 1982 D अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By "ी जे डी "म""ी : Shri J D Mistry Respondent By : "ी एन के चाँद Shri N K Chand सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 14-12-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-03-2016 आदेश Order अिमत शु"ला : "या. स.: Per Amit Shukla, Jm: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27Th November, 2014 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -3(2)(1), Mumbai In Pursuance Of Direction Given By Dispute Resolution Panel –I, Mumbai (Drp) Under Section 144C(5), Vide Order Dated 16.10.2014. In The Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Following Issues:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234B

…ning any dividend income. However, the DRP after detailed discussion upheld the said disallowance. 19. Before us, Mr. J D Mistry submitted that, now in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, reported in [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del), no disallowance should be made once there is no exempt income and therefore, the disallowance as made by the AO should be deleted. 20. Ld. DR, strongly relying upon the order of the DRP submitted that, what is required to be looking into whether such investments are capable of earning exempt income or not; if they are then, needless to say…

Wind World Wind Farms (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2712/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Wind World Wind Farms बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner (India) Ltd., Of Income Tax- Range 8(1), V. (Formerly Known As Enercon Aayakar Bhavan, Wind Farms (India) Ltd.), Maharshi Karve Road, Wind World Tower, Mumbai- 400 020. Plot No. A-9, Veera Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace3530A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “G” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2712/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Wind World Wind Farms बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner (India) Ltd., of Income Tax- Range 8(1), v. (Formerly known as Enercon Aayakar Bhavan, Wind Farms (India) Ltd.), Maharshi Karve Road, Wind World Tower, Mumbai- 400 020. Plot No. A-9, Veera Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACE3530A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Bai…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Machino Plastics Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the revenue and allow the 14

ITA 5899/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiin Ita No. 5899/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Machino Plastics Ltd, Cirle-6(1), Room No.413, C.R. Plot No.3, Maruti Joint Venture Vs. Building, Complex, Delhi Gurgaon Road, New Delhi Gurgaon Pan:Aaacm6984G (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No 199/Del/2014 Machino Plastics Ltd, Vs Dcit, Plot No.3, Maruti Joint Venture Cirle-6(1), Room No.413, C.R. Complex, Delhi Gurgaon Road, Building, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aaacm6984G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh.Gagan Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr 16-11-2015 Date Of Hearing 11-12-2015 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 112Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40Section 40a

…DCIT V Machino Plastics Limited ITA No 5899 Del 2013 & CO 199 Del 2013 A Y 2010-11 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER In ITA No. 5899/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT, Machino Plastics Ltd, Cirle-6(1), Room No.413, C.R. Plot No.3, Maruti Joint Venture Vs. Building, Complex, Delhi Gurgaon Road, New Delhi Gurgaon PAN:AAACM6984G (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No 199/Del/2014 Machino Plastics Ltd, VS DCIT, Plot No.3, Maruti Joint Venture Cirle-6(1), Room No.413, C.R. Complex, Delhi Gurgaon Road, Building…

M/S. Modipon Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4155/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiin Ita No. 4155 & 4178/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…me Tax Act of Rs. 916/-. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no exempt Income of the assessee u/s 10 and therefore no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of The Income Tax Act. He relied on the decision of Honourable Delhi High court in case of Cheminvest Limited 378 ITR 33 . Ld DR relied on the orders of AO as well as CIT (A). 2 | P a g e Modipon Limited V ACIT ITA No 4155/Del/2011 & ACIT V Modipon Limited ITA N0. 4178/Del/2011 A Y 2008-09 6. We have carefully considered the submission. It is uncontroverted fact that assessee did not have any exempt income during the year. Hon Delhi High court in case of Cheminves…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vypar Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 443/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.443/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम/ The Ito-13(3)(3), M/S. Vyapar Industries Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 145, Abbas Mnzil, Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacb 8643H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri G.M. Dass ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jignesh R. Shah सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :03.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :03.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-20,Mumbai Dated 28.10.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised 2 Substantial Grounds Of Appeal. The First Grievance Relates To The Deletion Of The Addition Made U/S. 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The Act & The Second Grievances Relates To The Deletion Of The Addition Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Bad Debts.

For Appellant: Shri G.M. DassFor Respondent: Shri Jignesh R. Shah

Section 14ASection 36(2)

…. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the disallowance of presumed expenditure. 5. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. It was brought to the notice of the Ld. DR the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT 378 ITR 33 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee and the genuineness of the expenditure incurred was not in doubt, no disallowance could be made u/s. 14A of the Act. 3 ITA. No.443/M/2015 6. Now that this issue has been well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We do not find…