TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rop of the fact that the no exempt income was received or was receivable by the assessee during the year in question i.e. A.Y. 2010-11, we agree with the claim of the Ld.A.R that no disallowance u/s. 14A was called for in the hands of the assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. Nos. 6342, 6343 And 6344/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2021 - Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM And Shri Ravish Sood, JM For the Assessee : Shri Jayesh Dadia For the Revenue : Shri Sumit Kumar ORDER PER BENCH 1. These captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (for short Ld. CIT(A) ) dated 24.07.2019 which inturn arises from the respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars i.e. A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to verify the documents provided by the assessee and re-adjudicate the matter afresh. 5. The Assessing Officer giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal, vide his order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, dated 31.03.2019, worked out the disallowance u/s. 14A at ₹.2,08,93,476/- and assessed the income of the assessee under the normal provisions at ₹.7,27,23,875/-. Apart from that, the book profits of the assessee u/s.115JB of the Act was determined at ₹.95,14,28,595/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A.R relied on the judgements of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT-6 v. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd., [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bombay) and PCITv. Red Chillies Entertainment (P.) Ltd., [2020] 116 taxmann.com 770 (Bombay). 8. It was further averred by the Ld. A.R that as held by the Hon'ble High Court, in absence of any exempt income having been received or receivable by the assessee during the year in question no disallowance u/s. 14A be called for. It was the claim of the Ld. A.R that section 14A would not apply if no exempt income was received or was receivable during the relevant previous year. On the basis of the aforesaid averments it was the claim of the Ld.A.R that as no exempt income was received or was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14A is liable to be made in the hands of the assessee. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT-6 v. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd., (supra) in unequivocal terms had concluded that section 14A would not apply if no exempt income was received or was receivable by the assessee during the relevant previous years. For the sake of clarity, we herein cull out the relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court as under: - 8. Section 14A of the Act deals with expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. As per subSection (1) of Section 14A, for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was received or was receivable by the assessee during the year in question i.e. A.Y. 2010-11, we agree with the claim of the Ld.A.R that no disallowance u/s. 14A was called for in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observation we herein set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and vacate the disallowance of ₹.1,42,50,500/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed. 12. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA.Nos. 6343 6344/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12 2012-13) 13. As the facts and the issue involved in the aforementioned appeals i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, ITA.No. 6343/Mum/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
