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.

Income-Tax Officer, Jalgaon vs. Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1397/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

…ny 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. As the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income or disallowance suo motu offeed by the assessee at Rs.51,363/-, whichever is higher, we hold that the same is in order and…

Income-Tax Officer, Jalgaon vs. Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1398/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

…ny 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. As the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income or disallowance suo motu offeed by the assessee at Rs.51,363/-, whichever is higher, we hold that the same is in order and…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Silver Jubilee Motores Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1757/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-6, Vs. Silver Jubilee Motors Ltd., Pune 12, Moledina Road, Camp, Pune 411001 Pan : Aahcs8736P Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 201(1)Section 40

…g 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 also held that in the absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any 10 disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case earned exempt dividend income of Rs.2,48,167/- and the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s.14A to that extent, we uphold the same. 12. The only other issue left in this…

M/S. Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1661/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Shiwar, Bhusawal, Circle-2, Dist. Jalgaon – 425 301 Jalgaon Pan : Aaact6669D Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…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 3 M/s. Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd., 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, we hold that no disallowance was called for. The impugned order is overturned…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.193/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s Rawats-Balaji(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AABAR 9061 J TAN No. : BBNR01647 C AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.194/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s SBEPL-GRIL(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AAFAS 2639 R TAN No. : BBNS04348 B AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.195/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Asse…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.193/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s Rawats-Balaji(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AABAR 9061 J TAN No. : BBNR01647 C AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.194/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s SBEPL-GRIL(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AAFAS 2639 R TAN No. : BBNS04348 B AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.195/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Asse…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.193/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s Rawats-Balaji(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AABAR 9061 J TAN No. : BBNR01647 C AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.194/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s SBEPL-GRIL(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AAFAS 2639 R TAN No. : BBNS04348 B AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.195/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Asse…

Carroro India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 835/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri M.P Lohia &For Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu
Section 144C(5)Section 37

…9/- proposed by the AO u/s.14A.” 44. The Ld. AR on this issue relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kohinoor Projects (P) Ltd., IT Appeal No.1124 of 2017 dated 27th January, 2020 reported in 425 ITR 700 (Bombay). In this case, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court had held that Section 14A would not apply when no exempt income was received or was receivable during the relevant previous year. That when the matter was before the Tribunal, it had considered the contentions of the A.Y.2011-12 assessee that no exempt income was claimed by the assessee u/s.1…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Carraro India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 823/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri M.P Lohia &For Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu
Section 144C(5)Section 37

…9/- proposed by the AO u/s.14A.” 44. The Ld. AR on this issue relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kohinoor Projects (P) Ltd., IT Appeal No.1124 of 2017 dated 27th January, 2020 reported in 425 ITR 700 (Bombay). In this case, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court had held that Section 14A would not apply when no exempt income was received or was receivable during the relevant previous year. That when the matter was before the Tribunal, it had considered the contentions of the A.Y.2011-12 assessee that no exempt income was claimed by the assessee u/s.1…

Kumar Properties and Real Estate Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2977/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2977/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14 Kumar Properties & Real Estate Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Private Limited, Pune Ist Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Shri Vitthal Bhosale Date Of Hearing 27.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28-04.2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-7, Pune On 01.09.2017 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,47,65,688/- Towards Deemed Rental Income On Stock-In-Trade Of Unsold Flats/Bungalows Held By The Assessee, As A First Major Issue. Succinctly, The Factual Panorama Of The Case Is That The Assessee Has Been Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Properties With The Projects `Kumar Infinia’ & `Kumar Picasso’

Section 2Section 22Section 23Section 27

…ng 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. 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, t…

Babanrao Dagadu Shelke, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2515/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Babanrao Dagadu Sheke, Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Flat No.8, Ist Floor, Pune Ganesh Gayatri Apartment, 291, Somwar Peth, Pune 411 011 Pan : Arxps0079D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandrasekhar L.S. Revenue By Shri Vitthal Bhosale Date Of Hearing 18-03-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18-03-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-4, Pune On 06-06-2017 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs.850,066/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.14A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‘The Act’). 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. The Ao Observed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings That The Assessee Borrowed Certain Funds

Section 14A

…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. As the assessee in the instant case did not earn any exempt income, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that no disallowance was called for. The impugned order is overturned and the sustenance of the disallowance…

Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

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

ITA 2945/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2945/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 13, Megaspace, Sholapur Bazar Road, Off East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcm2461K बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-14, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sakharam Sable Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 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)- 9, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “A) The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.3,86,352/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule- 8(D), While The Appellant Company Has Not Received Any Sum By Way Of Exempt Income. Further, The Appellant Company Has Not Made Any Additional Investments Generating Exempt Income During The Year. The Company Has Not Utilized Any Borrowed Funds For Investments. On The Similar Facts, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Deleted The Disallowance For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. The Same Has Been Upheld By Itat (Pune Bench) For A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, In The Light Of Various Judicial Decisions, This Disallowance Being Unwarranted Needs Cancellation. B) The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Modify, Expand The Ground(S) Of Appeal & Lay/Produce The Evidence(S) At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sakharam SableFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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.). 9. 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…

Tarini Steel Company Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 13/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2012-13

Section 14A

…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 3 Tarini Steel Company Ltd., of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. As the assessee in the instant case did not admittedly earn any exempt income, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that no disallowance was called for. The impugned order is overturne…