Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Dhumal Industries, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.993 & 994/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dhumal Industries, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. E-36, D Road, Midc, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aacfd0528N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.993/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

…LP 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); (iv) 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.). 10. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and its ow…

Dhumal Industries, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.993 & 994/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dhumal Industries, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. E-36, D Road, Midc, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aacfd0528N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.993/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

…LP 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); (iv) 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.). 10. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and its ow…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -11, Pune vs. Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, (Formerly Igate Global Solutions Ltd.), Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

…any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC. More recently the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 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. Thus the disallowance has to be restricted to the extent of exempt income of Rs.9,80,400/-. As the assessee has suo motu offered disallowance of Rs.1,72,539/-, we sustain the further disallowance at Rs.8,07,861/- (Rs.9,80,400…

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

…any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC. More recently the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 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. Thus the disallowance has to be restricted to the extent of exempt income of Rs.9,80,400/-. As the assessee has suo motu offered disallowance of Rs.1,72,539/-, we sustain the further disallowance at Rs.8,07,861/- (Rs.9,80,400…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Builder Mumbai Realty Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…LP 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); (iv) 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.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this issue it does not require any verification of fact or enqui…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…LP 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); (iv) 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.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this issue it does not require any verification of fact or enqui…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…LP 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); (iv) 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.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this issue it does not require any verification of fact or enqui…

Tarini Steel Comapny Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…ng from both the sides that this taxpayer had not derived any exempt income in former assessment year and the relevant figure in latter assessment year reads a sum of Rs.18,382.19 only. That being the case, we quote PCIT vs. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom) that section 14A read with rule 8D only comes into play “in relation” to an assessee‟s exempt income derived in the relevant previous year than having any independent exigibility. We thus accept the assessee‟s instant former appeal No.723/PUN/2019 for this precise reason alone. 3. The factual position is admittedly a little different in as…

Tarini Steel Comapny Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

…ng from both the sides that this taxpayer had not derived any exempt income in former assessment year and the relevant figure in latter assessment year reads a sum of Rs.18,382.19 only. That being the case, we quote PCIT vs. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom) that section 14A read with rule 8D only comes into play “in relation” to an assessee‟s exempt income derived in the relevant previous year than having any independent exigibility. We thus accept the assessee‟s instant former appeal No.723/PUN/2019 for this precise reason alone. 3. The factual position is admittedly a little different in as…

Voss Automotive India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Voss Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1101, Urawade Road, Pirangut, Circle-13, Tal. Mulashi, Pune – 412115 Pune Pan : Aaccv1983G Appellant Respondent

…nd affirmed in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion in paras 6 to 6.3, it emerges at the outset that this taxpayer had not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year. That being the case, we quote PCIT vs. M/s. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom) to conclude that the impugned statutory provision only applies “in relation” to the exempt income than having any independent exigibility. We, therefore, delete the impugned first and foremost disallowance of Rs.4,61,003/- for this precise reason alone. 3. Learned counsel does not press for the assessee‟s latter substantive ground challengi…

M/S. Nandan Associates, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1754/Pun/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nandan Associates, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Flat No.1, Sl.No.82/2, Pune Nandadeep Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra Pan : Aaffn6713N Appellant Respondent

…vest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) wherein it was held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 700 (Bom) has also held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. As the assessee in the instant case did not earn any exempt income, respectfully following the precedent, it is held that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for. 7. To sum up, the amount of Rs.1.13 crore, being, the VAT…

Babanrao Dagdu Shelke, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6 (2), Pune

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1404/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Babanrao Dagdu Shelke, Vs. Ito, Ward- 6(2), Pune. Flat No.08, Ganesh Gaytri Apt. 291, Somwar Peth, Pune-411011. Pan : Arxps0079D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Dismissing Appeal Of Appellant Without Serving Notice’S Of Hearing As Mentioned In Appellate Order. 2. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,86,017/- U/S 14A When No Exempt Income Is Earned By Appellant. 3. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs 3,86,017/- U/S 14A When No Expenditure Was Incurred By Appellant For Earning Any Exempt Income.

…LP 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); (iv) 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.). 8. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and its own…

M/S. Mgi Coutier Exotech Industries Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

…any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC. More recently the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 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. 15. The ld. AR has invited our attention towards the balance sheet of the assessee, which indicates that the Shareholders’ fund was many times higher than the amount of Investments. Notwithstanding the fact that the asses…

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistamt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

…LP 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); (iv) 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); (vi) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.) 22. In the light of above legal position, we do not find any illegality in the finding of ld. CIT(A) in holding that provisions of section 14A have no application in the absence of any exempt income. Accordingly, thi…