TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - I.T.A. No.3760/Mum/2018, C.O. No.157/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2020 - HON BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Assessee by : Shri Jay Bhansali -Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri V. Vinod Kumar -Ld. DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ( Accountant Member ) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-4/IT-128/ACIT-16(1)/2016-17 dated 22/03/2018 on following grounds of appeal: - i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s, 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Courts that actual earning of the income is not sine qua non for deciding the deduction of expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of earning the income. Thus, taking the same logic forward, where investment has been made in shares, which did not yield any dividend in the year under consideration, the expenditure incurred for earning the income is deductible notwithstanding the fact that no such income has been earned. v) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing officer be restored. 2. The assessee, upon receipt of notice of hearing, has filed crossobjection. The grounds taken in its cross-objection read as under: - 1. The Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made in terms of CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11/02/2014 which mandate such disallowance notwithstanding the quantum of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and we have also perused the relevant material on record including judicial pronouncements as cited by Ld. AR during the course of hearing. 5. Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident corporate assessee has been assessed for year under consideration in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17/03/2016 wherein it has been saddled with additional disallowance u/s 14A for ₹ 178.44 Lacs. The said disallowance has been made while computing the income under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atena of binding decisions of Hon ble High Courts as cited by Ld. AR and tabulated by us in preceding paragraph no. 3. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in its recent decision of Pr. CIT Vs. Huntsman International (India) Pvt.Ltd. (ITA 1619 of 2016 dated 30/01/2019) refused to admit the question of law raised by the revenue against the decision of Tribunal which relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court titled as CIT V/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (272 CTR 282) to hold that where there is no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance u/s 14A could be made. It was also noted by Hon ble High Court that Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (95 Taxmann.com 250) dismissed the Revenue s SLP against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
