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 14ASection 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 43BSection 8DSection 80-IASection 115BSection 10

Issues it is cited on

unabsorbed depreciationdisallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14asection 115jbsection 10section 37previous yearcompanyprescribedindiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…the Act is only to be made only if there is exempt income and not otherwise, support is derived from the decisions in ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT: 374 ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 ITR 108 (Del.), Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT : 379 ITR 33 (Del.), CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd.: 272 CTR 282 (Del.), ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd: 165 ITD 27 (Del SB), CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd.: 372 ITR 97 (Guj.), CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.: 319 ITR 204 (P&H), CIT v. M/s Lakhani Marketing: 272 CTR 265 (P&H) , CIT v. M/s. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd.: 272 CTR 277 (All), Interglobe Enterprises v. DCIT: ITA No.1362 & 1032/Del./2013 (Del…

Jet Airways (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistry-ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johari and Ms.Arju Goradia-DR
Section 115JSection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय 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 पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./933/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jet Airways (Indi…

M/S. Liberty Shoes Ltd., Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

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

ITA 2273/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., Acit, Karnal Circle, G.T. Road, Gharaunda, Vs Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Aaacl3146K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 80Section 80I

…in the year. 15. In Joint Investment P. Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the amount of tax-exempt income and in CIT vs Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282, it was held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned. 16. It is a question of fact to be verified as to whether a taxpayer earned any tax-free income during the year. We, therefore, set aside the issue to the file of the ld. AO to verify whether any tax-free income by way of dividend from the investments was earned by…

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

…rned it does not admit of any interference inasmuch 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…

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

…rned it does not admit of any interference inasmuch 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…

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

…rned it does not admit of any interference inasmuch 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…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bgh Exim Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3703/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Ms. Anupama Singla( D. R.)For Respondent: Shri Ronak G. Doshi & Ritu Punjabi
Section 14A

…o.5592/Mum/2012) 3 Nimbus Communications Ltd. v. ACIT 9-24 (I.T.No.1424/Mum/2014 4 ACIT V. M/S Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd (I.T.Act 25-55 No 2733/Del/2012) No disallowance is to be made when capital gains are chargeable to tax 5 CIT v. Holcim India P. Ltd. (272 CTR 282) (Del. 56-62 High Court) 6 Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd. v. 63-73 DCIT (145 ITD 17) (Chennai) No disallowance u/s. 14A when no dividend income is earned 7 CIT v. Delite Enterprised (income Tax Appeal 74-85 No. 110 of 2009 (Bom) 8 Cheminvest Ltd.v. CIT (378 ITR 33) (Del) (High 86-92 Court) 9 Avshesh Mercantile P. Ltd. v. DCIT(26 93-103…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Commodities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4090/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate and Shri Ashish Chadha and Shri Ashish
Section 14A

…o operation. We find this issue to be covered in favour of 2 ITA-4090/Del/2015 the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT-VI – [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. Holcim India P.Ltd. – [2014] 272 CTR 282 (Delhi), wherein Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that if there is no exempt income, then no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made. Admittedly, in the case of the assessee, there is no exempt income. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) an…

Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd ( Engineering & Construction Division) (Erstwhile Reliance Engg. Associates P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicate hereinabove

ITA 5151/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amit Shukla () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri. Satyapal Kumar
Section 115JSection 14Section 143Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…the year, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements.  ACB India Ltd., v Asst. CIT (374 ITR 108 (Del)  Asst. CIT vs. M. Baskaran (ITA No.1717/Mds/2013)  CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd., (272 CTR 262 Guj)  CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd., (272 CTR 282 (Del)  CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing Incl. (272 CTR 265 (P&H) 10. On the other hand Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders a…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 52/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 51/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 50/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 49/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 48/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 47/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d during the year. In support, he relied upon following decisions: ACB India Ltd v ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108 ACIT u M Baskaran.inITA 1717/M/2013(AY 09-10) CIT u Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 262 (Guj) CIT v Holcim India (PJ Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making investment and there is no dir…

M/S. Hema Engineering Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2326/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 Hema Engineering Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 12(1), C/O M/S Wahi & Co., New Delhi. K-1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Aaach 0118 F ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Malhotra CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 14A

…High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, vide its order dated 25-2-2015, has held that disallowance under section14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. The Delhi High Court in the case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 272 CTR 282(Del), has held that there can be no disallowance under section 14A in the absence of any exempt income. The rationales behind these judgments are that the amount of disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. 6. Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that before Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by ld.…

Dcm Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the additional ground of the assessee is allowed and ground

ITA 1511/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantdcit Vs Dcm Ltd. Circle 10(1) 6Th Floor, Vikrant Tower, New Delhi. Rajendra Place, New Delhi. Aaacd1012E & Dcm Ltd. Vs Dcit 6Th Floor, Vikrant Tower, Circle 10(1) Rajendra Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aaacd1012E Assessee By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Revenue By Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Ca

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…70,088/-, disallowance is to be restricted to this amount only notwithstanding the fact that the company had made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 21.87 lacs. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Limited 272 CTR 282 (Del.), Joint Investment P. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 for the proposition. ITA No. 1237 & 1511/D/14 Page 7 of 15 On ground no. 1 of the Department’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of Rs. 22.32 lacs on account of notional interest on interest free advances to DCM Employees Trust, the Ld. AR s…