How many judgments cite CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.?

128 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (272 CTR 282), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 253(3), Section 43B, Section 8D, Section 80-IA.

CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.

272 CTR 282High Court2014#805 most cited

What is CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, and investments made for business purposes in subsidiaries do not warrant disallowance under Section 14A, even if no dividend income is earned.

128

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. · Section 14A · Rule 8D · exempt income · investment in subsidiary · business purpose · dividend income · disallowance

Also reported as

111 DTR 153

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 43B Section 8D Section 80-IA Section 115B Section 10

Issues it is cited on

unabsorbed depreciation disallowance u/s 14a disallowance under section 14a section 14a section 115jb section 10 section 37 previous year company prescribed india business

Judgments citing CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mukund Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground no 3 is allowed

ITA 1794/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raj Mehta(ACA), A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 14A

…eceived, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under section 14A of the Act. In Cheminvest case, SLP before Supreme Court was not approved due to low tax effect. 4.3.5 Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Delhi) also held that there can be no disallowance under section 14A in the absence of exempt income. This position has been followed by other Courts as well by following the aforesaid decisions of Delhi High Court. 4.3.6 In PCIT Vs IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd [2017] 54 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi) dated 16.08.2017, the Delhi High Court hel…

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…e during the relevant year and therefore, as per the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. ITA No. 4091/Mum/2019 & CO No. 72/Mum/2021 Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd. (378 ITR 33) and Holcim India P. Ltd. ( 272 CTR 282) , no disallowance u/s. 14A can be made. Further, as regards the disallowance out of interest u/s. 14A, the assessee submitted that out of the total interest of Rs. 24.44 crs. debited in the P&L A/c., an amount of Rs. 14.95 crs. has been claimed u/s. 24 and the balance interest of Rs. 9.49 crs. has not at all been claimed as a deduction. Accordin…

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Trichy

In the result, appeal of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed

ITA 3156/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. M/S. Dalmia Dalmia Bharat Bharat Trichy Ltd.,Dalmiapuram, Tamilnadu - Ltd.,Dalmiapuram, Tamilnadu 621 651, Pan/Gir No.Aajcs 7366 K Aajcs 7366 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : N O N E Revenue By : Dr S.Palanikumar, Cit (Dr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/3/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Dr S.Palanikumar, CIT (DR

Section 14A

…is to be reckoned in computing disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T.Rules. The assessee has also relied on the various judgments to support this proposition including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.Holcim India Pvt Ltd, 272 CTR 282 (Del), P a g e 4 | 17 Assessment Year : 2014-15 wherein, it was held that investments made for the purposes of the business in subsidiaries etc, there cannot be any disallowance u/.s.14A of the Act irrespective of factum of earning dividend income. Therefore, for working out or computing the disallowance of expenditure and interest as prescribe…

Asstt. CIT (OSD) - CC -7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S Shri Rifaur Rahamn & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – Cc-7(3) Vs. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, 6Th Ltd (Successor To Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Mk Road, Mumbai – Buildmart Pvt Ltd) 400020. (Earlier Known As Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent Macrotech Developers Vs. Dcit – Cc-7(3) Ltd (Successor To Room No. 655, 6Th Bellissimo Crown Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Buildmart Pvt Ltd) Mk Road, Mumbai – (Earlier Known As 400020. Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal held that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. The Tribunal, therefore, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India (Pvt.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282. In such decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made. It is pointed out to us that this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.693 of 2015 in case 2 of 4 Uday S. Jagtap 1619-16-ITXA-34=.doc of Principal CIT Vs. M/s. Rivian International (P) Ltd.,…

Continental Device India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8314/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tax free income during the year;- i) ACB India vs. ACIT [2015J 374 ITR 108 (Delhi); ii) Chem Invest vs. CIT [2015J 370 ITR 33 (Delhi). iii) Pro CIT vs, IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (2017) Taxman.com 186 (Delhi). iv) Cit vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd. [2015} 272 CTR 282 (Delhi). v) HT Media Ltd. vs. Pro CIT [201. 7-TIOL-1. 643-HC-Delhi- IT]. vi) Pro CIT V. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. [201.5] 376 ITR 553/[2016] 66 taxmann.com 356 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd. [201.8] 93 taxmann.com 24 (SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SPL) filed by revenue against order of CI…

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1588/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna, CA

Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153B

…in relation to tax exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. We further notice that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Delhi) has held that there can be no dis allowance under section 14A in the absence of exempt income. The rationale behind these judgments is that the amount of dis allowance cannot exceed exempt income. In this case, on perusal of the facts, we find that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 24,138, whereas the assessing officer disallow…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92C

…e following decisions:  Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT: 234 Taxman 761 (Del HC)  CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.: 248 Taxman 55 (Mad.) - Revenue's SLP dismissed in CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.: 257 Taxman 2 (SC)  CIT vs. Holcim India Private Limited: 272 CTR 282 (Delhi)  PCIT vs. McDonald’s India (P.) Ltd. : 101 taxmann.com 86 (Del.)  PCIT v. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd.: 399 ITR 483 (Del.)  Interglobe Enterprises v. DCIT: ITA No. 1362 & 1032/Del./2013 (Del. Trib.) - affirmed by Delhi High Court in ITA No. 456 of 2016  A CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd..: ITA No.4959/Del/2012 & 5401/Del/2013 (De…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3423/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Section 143Section 92C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1592/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…in relation to tax exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. We further notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Delhi) has held that there can be no dis allowance under section 14A in the absence of exempt income. The rationale behind these judgments is that the amount of disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. In this case, on perusal of the facts, we find that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 24,138, whereas the assessing officer disallowe…

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1590/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…in relation to tax exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. We further notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Delhi) has held that there can be no dis allowance under section 14A in the absence of exempt income. The rationale behind these judgments is that the amount of disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. In this case, on perusal of the facts, we find that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 24,138, whereas the assessing officer disallowe…

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1589/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…in relation to tax exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. We further notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Delhi) has held that there can be no dis allowance under section 14A in the absence of exempt income. The rationale behind these judgments is that the amount of disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. In this case, on perusal of the facts, we find that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 24,138, whereas the assessing officer disallowe…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…s, 1962. 133. After hearing both the sides, we find, the assessee has not received any exempt income during the impugned assessment year and, therefore, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 272 CTR 282, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. Therefore, in absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee for the impugned assessment year no disallowance u/s 14A could have been made. The ground raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 134. The first additional ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- “That the ESOP expenses of Rs.8,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

ACIT, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Percept Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5205/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Revenue by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal held that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. The Tribunal, therefore, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India (Pvt.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282. In such decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made. It is pointed out to us that this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.693 of 2015, following the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Holcim India (P) Ltd. (supra), has adopted the same p…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Kanishka Healthcare Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3448/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 14A

…sessee neither had earned any exempt income during the year nor had any expense incurred which were directly relatable to the investment in question. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. 272 CTR 282 and Cheminvest Ltd. reported at 371 ITR 23 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 402 ITR 640 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is clear from the records that that there was no exempt income attributab…

M/S Bobba Aviation Cargo and Ground Handling Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 448/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Bobba Aviation Cargo & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground Handling Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #33/5, Mount Kailash, Circle – 11(2), Meanee Avenue Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 042. Pan : Aadcb 3096 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 4.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 4.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14A

…the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 372 ITR 694 wherein a view was taken that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., 272 CTR 282 (Del). These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT, ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.07.2017 relating to AY 2011-12 and it was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Following Page 4 of 4 the afore…

Sky Appliances Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4511/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 115JSection 14A

…by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal held that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. The Tribunal, therefore, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Holcim India (Pvt.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282. In such decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made. It is pointed out to us that this Court in Principal CIT vs. M/s. Rivian International (P) Ltd., by order dated 21.11.2017, following the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Holcim…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sky Appliances Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 115JSection 14A

…by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal held that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. The Tribunal, therefore, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Holcim India (Pvt.) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282. In such decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made. It is pointed out to us that this Court in Principal CIT vs. M/s. Rivian International (P) Ltd., by order dated 21.11.2017, following the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Holcim…