Road Development Company Ltd (2021) 435 ITR 323 (Mad.) (2) Tamil Nadu Development Co Ltd. v. DCIT

436 ITR 298High Court#20859 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 10 Section 132 Section 135 Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 14a company section 143(3)business total income

Judgments citing Road Development Company Ltd (2021) 435 ITR 323 (Mad.) (2) Tamil Nadu Development Co Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hubtown Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3038/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

…ein it was held that no disallowance uls. 14A could be made in the absence of any exempt income. 16 ITA Nos 1601 & 3038. /Mum/2025 Hubtown Limited Similar view is taken in the following case. Tamilnadu Road Development Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 124 taxmann.com 599/436 ITR 298 (Mad.). Pr. CIT v. Dipesh Lalchand Shah 143 taxmann.com 419 (Guj.) Pr. CIT v. Adani Wilmar Ltd. 133 taxmann.com 443 (Guj) CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd 95 taxmann.com 250/ 257 Taxman 2 (SC). Pr. CIT v. GVK Project & Technical Services Ltd. 106 taxmann.com 181/264 Taxman 76 (SC) 6.2.8 It is further decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB…

Hubtown Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

Tablez Food Company Private Limited, Kochi vs. Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 831/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Tablez Food Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 971/B Y Tower, Mkk Nair Road Vazhakkala, Kochi 682030 [Pan: Aadct6643G] Vs. Ito, Corporate Ward -2(4), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [Cit(A)] Dated 29.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Running Of Restaurants. The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 15.10.2016 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 3,30,247/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward – 2(4), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2016-17 Tablez Food Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 971/B Y Tower, MKK Nair Road Vazhakkala, Kochi 682030 [PAN: AADCT6643G] vs. ITO, Corporate Ward -2(4), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [CIT(A)] dated 29.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts…

Dream Flower Housing Projects Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2015-16 Dream Flower Housing Projects Private Limited .......... Appellant 49/1295E, Ponckkara Road, Edapally Po Kochi-682024. Pan: Aaccd4362K Vs. Dcit .......... Respondent Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi, Kerala.

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…absence of exempt income, no disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act can be made. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments: (1) CIT vs. Tamilnadu Road Development Company Ltd (2021) 435 ITR 323 (Mad.) (2) Tamil Nadu Development Co Ltd vs. DCIT, 436 ITR 298 (3) PCIT vs. Nam Estates P Ltd, 434 ITR 154 7. Respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance U/s. 14A in the absence of exempt income. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2025. (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUN…