How many judgments cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO?

338 judgments on BharatTax cite Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO (121 ITD 318), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 1962, Section 143(2).

Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO

121 ITD 318Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#228 most cited

What is Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be made even when no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee.

338

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. ITO · Section 14A · disallowance of expenses · exempt income · no exempt income earned · Section 115JB · expenditure for exempt income · ITAT Special Bench · Delhi Tribunal · 121 ITD 318

Also reported as

317 ITR 86124 TTJ 577

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 115JB Section 1962 Section 143(2)Section 1961 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14a section 14a disallowance under section 14a section 115jb previous year company transfer section 14 india business total income section 143

Judgments citing Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Smt. Manisha Agarwal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 340/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14A

…ment years 2006-07 to 2010-11 - Assessee contended that during year it had no exempt income and, therefore, no disallowance under section 14A could be made - Assessing Officer relying upon decision of Tribunal rendered in case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO 120091 121 ITD 318 (Delhi) (SB) rejected assessee's contention - Whether since above decision of Tribunal had been reversed by jurisdictional High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT 12015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/ 61 taxinann.corn 118 (Delhi), it would have to be held that no disallowance under section 14A can be made, where there is no exempt income - Held,…

DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…ith Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) is against the action of Ld. CIT (A) in not taking into consideration the decision of the Special bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chem Investment Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 121 ITD 318. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had shown investment in the Balance Sheet at the beginning and at Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., AY 2009-10 the close of the year at Rs.954 lacs and Rs.959.56 lacs respectively. The funds were invested in equities of subsidiary and as…

M/S R. Piyarelall Iron & Steel (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 1414/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2008-09

Section 142(1)

…Act applying Rule 8D of the Rules. 10. At the outset, it has been brought to our notice that the assessee has not earned any dividend income. Since the assessee has not earned any dividend income, we relying on the case of Chem Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 121 ITD 318 (Del.) hold that no section 14A disallowance is to be made in case the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance was warranted and, therefore, we allow this ground of appeal of 4 R. Piyarelall Iron & Steel (P) Ltd., AY 2008-09 the assessee and direct the AO to delete the sum of Rs.53,141/- on account of sec. 14A disall…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited. Tirupathi, Tirupathi vs. ITO, Ward-17(3), Hyderabad

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Varsha Viswanath Vs. Ito, Properties Pvt Ltd., Ward-17(3), Tirupati. Hyderabad. Pan- Aaacv7381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By : Shri B. Suresh Babu Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-05-2018 Order Per Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Hyderabad, Dated 30.01.2017 For The A.Y 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The It Act, 1961 (The Act).

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu

Section 14ASection 250

…CIT, reported in (2009) 317 ITR 86, has held that no disallowance can be 2 M/s Varsha Viswanath Properties Pvt Ltd., Tirupati. made u/s 14A of the IT Act, when the assessee has no exempt income. 3. The order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, reported in 121 ITD 318 (Del)(SB) has been reversed by the Hon’ble High Court on this issue, hence we uphold the contentions of the assessee by following judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Cheminvest Ltd., Vs CIT (supra) and delete the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. 4. In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in…

Encord Refricool Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1226/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 14ASection 263

…CIT (2015) 61 taxman.com 118 (Del) wherein their lordships held that sec. 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year and set aside the Special Bench order of the Tribunal reported in Chem Investment Ltd. 121 ITD 318 (Del) which has been referred to by the Ld. Pr. CIT to find fault with the order of AO for not invoking Rule 8D. We note that the AO has restricted the disallowance to Rs.1,09,229/- which was the interest expenses of the assessee (that too which has been capitalized). In any event, the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even…

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

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

ITA 4246/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

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

…provisions of section 14A shall apply, where any such investment is made wherefrom such type of income might be generated either in the past or in the future year(s). In this regard, the AO placed reliance on the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO 317 ITR 86 (AT)(SB). In view of the above, the AO asked the assessee vide show cause letter dated 01.01.2014 to explain as to why disallowance u/s 14A should not be made. The assessee filed a reply before the AO on 29.01.2014, which has been extracted at page 17-20 of the assessment order dated 07.03.2014. However, the AO was not convinced with the above exp…

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

For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

Mps Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 963/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 14A

…the case of Southern Petro Chemical Industries vs DCIT 93 TTJ 161, which has approved the disallowance of proportionate management expenses while computing the dividend income. The Special Bench decision of ITAT in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Del) (SB). The AO has relied on the decision of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Escorts Ltd., vs ACIT 102 TTJ 522 etc. 9. We heard the rival submissions. Since, the assessee has not earned any dividend (exempt) income during the year, following the jurisdictional High Court decisions in the cases of Redington (India) Limited vs ACIT, Chennai […

Gangotri Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2348/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2348/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Gangotri Sales Pvt. Ltd……………………….…..………………………………………….…….……...Appellant 5/1, Clive Row 2Nd Floor Room No. 54 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaccg 4677 J] Income Tax Officer Ward-6(4), Kolkata…………………...……..……………………..……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit (A)’), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 25/09/2017. 2. The Only Issue That Has To Be Adjudicated Is Whether The Disallowance U/S 14A, Can Be Made When The Assessee Has No Dividend Income. 3. Heard Rival Contentions. We Find That The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cheminvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit (2009) 317 Itr 86, While Dealing With An Identical Issue Held As Follows:- “No Disallowance U/S 14A Can Be Made In A Year In Which No Exempt Income Has Been Earned Or Received By The Assessee. S. 14A Also Does Not Apply To Shares Bought For Strategic Purposes” 4. Respectfully Following The Same, We Delete The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) U/S 14A Of The Act & Allow This Appeal Of The Assessee. 5. In The Result, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed. Kolkata, The 14Th Day Of March, 2018 [J. Sudhakar Reddy]Dated :14.03.2018 {Sc Sps}

Section 14ASection 250

…17. 2. The only issue that has to be adjudicated is whether the disallowance u/s 14A, can be made when the assessee has no dividend income. 3. Heard rival contentions. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2009) 317 ITR 86, while dealing with an identical issue held as follows:- “No disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee. S. 14A also does not apply to shares bought for strategic purposes” 4. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by…

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

…ct or indirect nexus can be established between the above expenses with the exempt income. 5.1.7 I have noted the case laws cited by the A.O. in pa'3 5.2 and 5.4 of his order, viz. Technopak Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 50 SOT 31 and Cheminvest Limited vs. ITO - 317 ITR 86 (AT) both of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi. However, my attention is drawn to several other judgements that lay down a guideline for applicability of s. 14 A in case there is no exempt income or no exempt income in a particular assessment year or, the investment is in subsidiary companies purely for purpose of furthering the business of the assessee or, ther…

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

…cular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.2.2014 wherein it was held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made even in the year where there is no exempt income earned or received by the assessee and the ITAT special decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. [2009] 121 ITD 318 (SB) (Delhi) wherein it was held disallowance under Sec.14A of the Act can be made even when there is no exempt income. Before us it was not disputed by the revenue that the CBDT Circular on which has been referred to in the CBDT Circular and the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) is contrary to the decision of H…

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. (…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 163/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle- 7(2), Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi. 861-862, Joshi Road, Vs. Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. R. Senapati, Sr.DR

Section 14A

…de disallowance of Rs.46,37,354/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 5. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 273 CTR 283 and in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 317 ITR 86 deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has not earned any exempt income which form part of the total income during the year under consideration. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gcil Fianance Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5686/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Gcil Finance Ltd. बिधम/ Tax-1(1)(2), 579 209-210, Arcadia Bldg, Aayakar Bhavan, 195, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadcg0600Q (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.R

Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…investment had been made in shares which did not yield any dividend in the year under consideration, expenditure incurred for earning the income was deductible notwithstanding the fact that no such income had been earned. In the case of Cheminvest Ltd Vs ITO 124 TTJ 577(Del) it was held that if the expenditure is incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income, it has to suffer disallowance irrespective of the fact whether any income is earned by the assessee or not. Section 14A does not envisage any such exception. When prior to introduction of Sec 14A, an expenditure both under sections…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 4234/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Cent. Cir. – 6(4), M/S J M Baxi & Co., Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 16, Bank Street, Fort, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai – 400021 Vs. Pan: Aaafj5198E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. R.P. Meena (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri N.S. Goradiya & Sh. Harsh Shah (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Goradiya &For Respondent: Sh. R.P. Meena (CIT DR)

Section 143Section 14ASection 153A

…The said investments did not earn any income or income which does not found part in the total income. The assessee did not disallow any expenditure u/s 14A. The AO relying on the decision of Special Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ITO 317 ITR 86, made disallowance of Rs. 46,18,211/- u/s 14A read with rule 8D and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 37,14,16,560/-. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A) inter alia on the ground that the AO has erred in framing the assessment u/s 143 (3) read with section 153A of the Act without appreciating the fa…

Amartara Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6114/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 45(3)Section 50C

…nce of any exempt income, no disallowance could be made towards expenditure incurred in relation to earning exempt income u/s 14A of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’be Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cheminvest Ltd 2015) 317 ITR 86 (Del). The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Ousesh Mercantile Pvt Ltd vs DCIT 26 Taxman.Com 43 (Mum) and also the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Deloitte Enterprises in ITA No.110 of 2009. The AO, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also considering…

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amartara Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6050/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 45(3)Section 50C

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)

…dend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318. The Court also referred to three decisions of different High Courts which have decided the issue against Revenue. The first was the decision in CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc . [2014] 226 Taxman 45/49 taxmann.com 257 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which in turn referred to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fortis Hospitals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5719/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…y observing as under: “The various High Courts have uniformly held that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made if there is no exempt income and in that context over ruled the decision of Special Bench, New Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 317 ITR 86. In the case on hand, it is clear from the submissions filed during the appellate proceedings that there is no income which is exempt from the tax during the year. In view of this the addition made by the AO u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is deleted and the AO is directed to modify the assessment order accordingly.” 3. We…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4838/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja

…n law, the learned QT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance U/S.14A observing that since there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s.14A without appreciating that as held r the decision of Special Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Chemiinvest 121 ITD 318 (Delhi) (SB), provisions of section 14A are applicable even through no exempt income has been earned during the year? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessee's claim that capital expenditure incurred by the assessee on taxiways, aprons, parking bays and bridges is…