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 366,470 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 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 115JBSection 1962Section 143(2)Section 1961Section 250

Issues it is cited on

disallowance u/s 14asection 14adisallowance under section 14asection 115jbprevious yearcompanytransfersection 14indiabusinesstotal incomesection 143

Judgments citing Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO

Rapid Estates Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4137/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 14ASection 2

…DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 4137 /Del/2013 (Assessment Year:- 2009-10 Rapid Estates Pvt. Ltd. DCIT vs H-65, Connaught Circus Circle-15(1) New Delhi New Delhi AAACR4421P (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Sajeve Deora, FCA Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Bimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement 30.05.2016 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi dated 19/4/2013 passed in Fi…

Gvn Fuels Limited, Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - I, Kolkata

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

ITA 2278/KOL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

…8D of the Rules has to be applied in full and hence, he invoked the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules by making an enhancement in the assessment. He placed reliance on the Special Bench decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Cheminvest reported in 121 ITD 318. 6. The Ld. AR in defence argued that the decision relied on by the ld. DR in the case of Chem Invest of Delhi Special Bench has been reversed by Hon’ble Delhi High court in the same case reported in 378 ITR 33. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record and the case laws cited by both the parties. We find tha…

Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: S/Shri Sandeep Jhanwar and Hitendra Bhandari –AR.sFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bare-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd.(supra),identical issue was adjudicated by us,as under: 1655/M/13 7orsPremier Finance & Trdg. “3.The next ground pertains to deleting the disallowance made 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…

PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4170/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…of the Act.We find that in the case of M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd.(supra),identical issue was adjudicated by us,as under: “3.The next ground pertains to deleting the disallowance made 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…

DCIT 7(1), Mumbai vs. PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3378/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…of the Act.We find that in the case of M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd.(supra),identical issue was adjudicated by us,as under: “3.The next ground pertains to deleting the disallowance made 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…

Mcx Stock Exchange Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6574/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklamcx Stock Exchange Limited Vs Dcit-8(2), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Exchange Square, (Respondent) Cts No. 255, Suren Road, Chakala, Mumbai 400 093. Pan : Aafcm6924F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh BhimaniFor Respondent: Rajeshwari Motwani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ure under Rule 8D(2)(iii). He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81 and also the Special Bench decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Chem Invest Ltd. vs. ITO, 317 ITR 86 (AT) , and accordingly, disallowed the indirect expenditure of Rs.35,25,158/- after taking 0.5% of the average value of investments. Since the assessee itself has disallowed Rs.5,32,007/-, the balance amount of Rs.29,93,151/- was added back to the income 4 MCX Stock Exchange Limited of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said disa…

M/S. Hotz Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (OSD), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 876/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ramka, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Making investments and earning exempt income is not a passive activity and requires conscious management decisions.  Followed Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 626/ 2010 and ITAT Special Bench in the case of Chem Invest Ltd. vs ITO reported in 317 ITR 86.  Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D worked out at Rs. 1, 22, 48, 177/-. (kindly see pages 2 to 5 of AO’s order). 6. - Submissions filed before CIT (A) dated 17.11.2011, gist of such submissions are (kindly see pages 331 to 365 of the paper book): Appellant Company submitted that out of the total interest expenditure debited in the Profit & Loss …

JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai vs. Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4088/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…td, ITA No. 3045 /Mum/2014 ITA No. 4088/Mum/2014 purely for acquiring controlling interest. However, the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s contention and held that in view of ITAT’s Special Bench decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs ITO, reported in [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Del) (SB) disallowance under section 14A has to be made even if there is no exempt income during the year. Accordingly, he worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,17,167/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said addition after discussing the decision of Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del)…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3046/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…td, ITA No. 3045 /Mum/2014 ITA No. 4088/Mum/2014 purely for acquiring controlling interest. However, the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s contention and held that in view of ITAT’s Special Bench decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs ITO, reported in [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Del) (SB) disallowance under section 14A has to be made even if there is no exempt income during the year. Accordingly, he worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,17,167/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said addition after discussing the decision of Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del)…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3045/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…td, ITA No. 3045 /Mum/2014 ITA No. 4088/Mum/2014 purely for acquiring controlling interest. However, the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s contention and held that in view of ITAT’s Special Bench decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs ITO, reported in [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Del) (SB) disallowance under section 14A has to be made even if there is no exempt income during the year. Accordingly, he worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,17,167/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said addition after discussing the decision of Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Del)…

Mitsui & Co India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 1795/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotrashri Kuldip Singhmitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 6 (1), District Centre Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan :Aadcm4488J) Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 16(2), District Centre Saket, New Delhi New Delhi. (Pan :Aadcm4488J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, Ca & Shri Ashish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, CA and Shri Ashish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 14ASection 234BSection 438Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…4 – AY 2009-10 AND GROUNDS NO.5 OF ITA NO.1795/DEL/2015 – AY 2010-11 27. The DRP has confirmed the addition of Rs.18,73,472/- for AY 2009-10 and Rs.23,17,869/- qua AY 2010-11 by applying the decision of Special Bench rendered in case of Cheminvest vs. ITO – 317 ITR 86 on the ground that disallowance would be made irrespective of the fact that during the year, there is any exempt income or not. Undisputedly, the aforesaid decision of Cheminvest (supra) 28. rendered by Special Bench of ITAT has been overruled by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA No.749/2014 vide judgment dated 02.09.2015. 29. Ld. DRP…

M/S. Mitsui & Co. India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 813/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotrashri Kuldip Singhmitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 6 (1), District Centre Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan :Aadcm4488J) Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 16(2), District Centre Saket, New Delhi New Delhi. (Pan :Aadcm4488J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, Ca & Shri Ashish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, CA and Shri Ashish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 14ASection 234BSection 438Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…4 – AY 2009-10 AND GROUNDS NO.5 OF ITA NO.1795/DEL/2015 – AY 2010-11 27. The DRP has confirmed the addition of Rs.18,73,472/- for AY 2009-10 and Rs.23,17,869/- qua AY 2010-11 by applying the decision of Special Bench rendered in case of Cheminvest vs. ITO – 317 ITR 86 on the ground that disallowance would be made irrespective of the fact that during the year, there is any exempt income or not. Undisputedly, the aforesaid decision of Cheminvest (supra) 28. rendered by Special Bench of ITAT has been overruled by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA No.749/2014 vide judgment dated 02.09.2015. 29. Ld. DRP…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…d decision and the reasoning contained therein, the ground raised by the Revenue is having no merit, therefore, dismissed. 3. The next ground pertains to deleting the disallowance made 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…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1493/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11
Section 144Section 14ASection 92C(3)

…tion, since in the present case, there is no exempt income viz. dividend etc. claimed by the Appellant. 2.5 erred in not appreciating the decision of the cases cited by the Appellant. 2.6 erred in relying on the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [121 ITD 318(SB)] GROUND NO. 3: NOT GRANTING CREDIT OF ADVANCE TAXES PAID BY THE APPELLANT 3.1 erred in not granting credit for advance taxes paid by the Appellant of Rs.6,000,000 for AY 2010-11. 3. As far as first ground of appeal, i.e. against ALP adjustment of Rs 1,13,400 in respect of the issuance of corporate guarantees is concerned, learned representati…

Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11
Section 144Section 14ASection 92C(3)

…tion, since in the present case, there is no exempt income viz. dividend etc. claimed by the Appellant. 2.5 erred in not appreciating the decision of the cases cited by the Appellant. 2.6 erred in relying on the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [121 ITD 318(SB)] GROUND NO. 3: NOT GRANTING CREDIT OF ADVANCE TAXES PAID BY THE APPELLANT 3.1 erred in not granting credit for advance taxes paid by the Appellant of Rs.6,000,000 for AY 2010-11. 3. As far as first ground of appeal, i.e. against ALP adjustment of Rs 1,13,400 in respect of the issuance of corporate guarantees is concerned, learned representati…

Richmond Realty P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5595/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR)
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

…and accordingly computed the disallowance of Rs.4,78,890/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chem Investments Ltd. (124 TTJ 577). 4. We heard the Ld. DR on this issue. The decision rendered by the Special Bench in the case of Chem Investments Ltd. has since been reversed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Hence, we are of the view that this issue requires afresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his fi…

Usha Martin Ventures Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 847/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 48Section 50(2)

…olkata Bench in ITA No. 644/Kol/2012 for A.Y 2008-09 (b) ISG Traders Ltd. v. CIT in 2011-TOIL-621-HC-KOL-IT dated 29.05.2002 (c) Dhanuka & Sons v. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 319 (Cal) (d) Technopak Advisors (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ITAT Delhi Bench (e) Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO 121 ITD 318 (Del) (SB) (f) Sonata Information Technology Ltd. v. DCIT ITA No.1507/Mum/2012 dated 07.09.2012 (g) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. DCIT ITA No. 6438 to 6441/Mum/2008 dated 28.09.2012 (h) DCIT v. M/s Trade Apartment Ltd. ITA No. 1277/Kol/2011 dated 31.03.2012 ITAT Kolkata Bench (i) M/s Gillette Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 267/Del/201…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1565/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.John Distilleries Ltd., No.110, Pantharapaly,A Mysore Road, Bangalore-39. … Appellant Pan:Aaacj 4322 P Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(5), Bangalore. … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ****** Assessee By : Shri H.V.Gowthama, Ca. Revenue By : Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri H.V.Gowthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…such expenditure has been formulated under rule ITA Nos.1429 & 1565/Bang/2014 Page 6 of 10 8D of I.T. rules. However section does not envisage restriction of disallowance except as applicable under rule 8D of I.T. Rules. In Chennai invest Ltd. vs. ITO (2809) 121 ITD 318/124 TTJ (Delhi-Trib) 577 (SB) held that disallowance under section 14A can be made even in a year in which, no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee, thus proportionate interest pertaining to investment for earning of dividend was disallowable even though exempt income (dividend) was not earned during the year. ” However, the…

M/S John Distilleries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1429/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.John Distilleries Ltd., No.110, Pantharapaly,A Mysore Road, Bangalore-39. … Appellant Pan:Aaacj 4322 P Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(5), Bangalore. … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ****** Assessee By : Shri H.V.Gowthama, Ca. Revenue By : Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri H.V.Gowthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…such expenditure has been formulated under rule ITA Nos.1429 & 1565/Bang/2014 Page 6 of 10 8D of I.T. rules. However section does not envisage restriction of disallowance except as applicable under rule 8D of I.T. Rules. In Chennai invest Ltd. vs. ITO (2809) 121 ITD 318/124 TTJ (Delhi-Trib) 577 (SB) held that disallowance under section 14A can be made even in a year in which, no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee, thus proportionate interest pertaining to investment for earning of dividend was disallowable even though exempt income (dividend) was not earned during the year. ” However, the…

Allbank Finance Ltd, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) Cir - 5, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 465/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10

For Appellant: S/Shri B.K Ghosh & Pijush Dey, FCAs, ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri S.S Alam, JCIT/Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…T vs Lakhani Marketing in ITA No. 970 of 2008 rendered by Punjab & Haryana High Court • CIT vs Delite Enterprises in ITA No. 110 of 2009 rendered by Bombay High Court The decision of special bench of Tribunal in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT reported in 121 ITD 318 had held that disallowance u/s 14A could be made even in an year in which no exempt income was earned or received by the assessee. But this decision has been overruled by Bangalore Tribunal , Gujarat High Court and Allahabad High Court as stated supra. Moreover we also find that the special bench decision in Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT has been overrul…