Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd.

425 ITR 700High Court2020#2177 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made if no exempt income is earned in the relevant assessment year. Consequently, such disallowance should not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. · Section 14A disallowance · no exempt income · Rule 8D · Section 115JB book profit · MAT · Bombay High Court · expenditure related to exempt income · 425 ITR 700 · PCIT v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 1961Section 4Section 5Section 2022Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

strategic investmentsection 144adisallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 14abook profitssection 35profits and gains of business or professionscrutiny assessmentsection 115jsection 115jbprevious year

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2277/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2275 & 2277/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, V Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited,20Th Floor, A Wing, Central Circle-2(2), S Pune. Marathon Futurx, N.M.Joshi Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan: Aadck5852G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Jay Bhansali (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 A.Y.2014-15 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…lar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd . [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28. More recently the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects (P.) Ltd . [2021] 276 Taxman 180/[2020] 121 taxmann.com 177/425 ITR 700 (Bom.) has held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. 19. The raison d'etre given by the ld. first appellate authority for sustaining the disallowance that the computation of income of the firm may result into positive income as well as negative income, i.e. loss and therefore,…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2275 & 2277/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, V Kakade Infrastructure Private Limited,20Th Floor, A Wing, Central Circle-2(2), S Pune. Marathon Futurx, N.M.Joshi Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan: Aadck5852G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Jay Bhansali (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 A.Y.2014-15 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…lar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd . [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28. More recently the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects (P.) Ltd . [2021] 276 Taxman 180/[2020] 121 taxmann.com 177/425 ITR 700 (Bom.) has held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. 19. The raison d'etre given by the ld. first appellate authority for sustaining the disallowance that the computation of income of the firm may result into positive income as well as negative income, i.e. loss and therefore,…

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5312/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora/For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

…allowance u/s 14A cannot be made in absence of exempt income. In this regard the appellant has relied on various case laws as under: (i) PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Limited [2016] (ITA No. 51 of 2016) (Bom)(HC). (ii) PCIT v. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. [2020] 425 ITR 700 (Bom)(HC) (iii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.)(HC) (iv) PCIT vs. Wockhardt Hospitals Limited ITA No. 1393 of 2017 (dated 16.03.2020) (Вот.)(HC) (v) PCIT vs. JSW Energy Ltd. ITA No. 699 of 2017 (dated 19.08.2019) (Bom.)(HC) (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 234 Taxman 761, Hon'ble Delhi High Court (vii) PCIT v…

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5310/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora/
Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

…allowance u/s 14A cannot be made in absence of exempt income. In this regard the appellant has relied on various case laws as under: (i) PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Limited [2016] (ITA No. 51 of 2016) (Bom)(HC). (ii) PCIT v. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. [2020] 425 ITR 700 (Bom)(HC) (iii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.)(HC) (iv) PCIT vs. Wockhardt Hospitals Limited ITA No. 1393 of 2017 (dated 16.03.2020) (Вот.)(HC) (v) PCIT vs. JSW Energy Ltd. ITA No. 699 of 2017 (dated 19.08.2019) (Bom.)(HC) (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 234 Taxman 761, Hon'ble Delhi High Court (vii) PCIT v…

Yashaswini Investments Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3124/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh JoijodeFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ion 14A of the Act were not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, additions of INR. 87,03,799/- made while computing ‘Book Profit’ under Section 115JB of the Act in respect of 2 PCIT-6 vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 425 ITR 700 (Bombay)[27-01-2020] 4 Assessment Year 2017-2018 disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules is deleted. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed. 10. In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30.06.2025. (Omkareshwar Chidara) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;…

Parakkott Investment India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 2137/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramaniam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…sputed fact that assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year. The issue before hand is no longer res integra. Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd.[2020] 425 ITR 700 9 Parakkott Investments India Pvt. Ltd., AY 2017-18 (Bom) wherein Hon'ble Court dismissing the appeal by the Revenue held that Tribunal was justified in holding that when there was no exempt income declared for the Assessment Year 2008-09, there could not be any disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D. In the given set of undisputed facts and the aforesa…

Dy.Comm. of Income-Tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Daystar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon‟Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon‟Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 43(5)

…position of law that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for when the assessee did not earn any exempt income. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd (425 ITR 700)(Bom). 10. We heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. The fact would remain that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year under consideration. The Hon‟ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court has held in the case of Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd (supra) that the disallowance u/s 14A is not required to be made if no…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Incred Holdings Limited (Formerly Known As Kkr Capital Markets India Limited)., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 4366/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 9 7. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Incred Holdings Limited (Formerly Known As Kkr Capital Markets India Limited)., Mumbai

ITA 4365/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…T.A. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Incred Holdings Limited (Formerly Known As Kkr Capital Markets India Limited)., Mumbai

ITA 4364/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…ew, that no interference is called for qua the impugned judgment." 6.1. The SLP of the revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4254/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…T.A. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4252/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…T.A. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4250/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…T.A. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4249/MUM/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…T.A. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4248/MUM/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…T.A. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Incred Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 4246/MUM/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT D/R & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…. No. 4250/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4252/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4254/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4364/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4365/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4366/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4373/Mum/2024 9 7. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. 425 ITR 700 (Bombay), was seized with the following substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,79,95,481/- on the ground that when there is no exempt income declared during the year, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-ta…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur vs. Mesers Narmada Drinks Private Limited, Bilaspur

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

ITA 89/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 92C

…is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) (ii) Pr. CIT Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. (2021) 127 taxmann.com 115 (Karnataka) (iii) Pr. CIT vs. Kohinoor Project (P) Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom.) (iv) Pr. CIT vs. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Born.) 8. Backed by our aforesaid observations, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the disallowance worked out by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A of the Act, i.e., de-hors any exempt dividend income having been earned by the assessee during the year under…

Bhandara Urban Co-Op Bank, Bhandara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 20/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd . [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28. More recently the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects (P.) Ltd . [2021] 276 Taxman 180/[2020] 121 taxmann.com 177/425 ITR 700 (Bom.) has held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. 19. The raison d'etre given by the ld. first appellate authority for sustaining the disallowance that the computation of income of the firm may result into positive income as well as negative income, i.e. loss and therefore,…

Bhandara Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Bhandara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 19/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd . [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28. More recently the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects (P.) Ltd . [2021] 276 Taxman 180/[2020] 121 taxmann.com 177/425 ITR 700 (Bom.) has held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. 19. The raison d'etre given by the ld. first appellate authority for sustaining the disallowance that the computation of income of the firm may result into positive income as well as negative income, i.e. loss and therefore,…

Puspak Steel Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

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

ITA 852/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); 6 CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 9. However, a change in law has been brought about the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non obstante clause and an Explanation after proviso. The amendment is reproduced below :-…