Tribunal allows appeal on disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act.

M/s Nitishree International Pvt. Ltd. Presently known as M/s Shourya Steelex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-13 (3), New Delhi.

M/s Nitishree International Pvt. Ltd. Presently known as M/s Shourya Steelex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-13 (3), New Delhi. - TMI Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Charging of interest under section 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by Ld. A.O. under section 14A of the Act. The assessee argued that no exempt income was earned, citing relevant case law. The A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) did not identify any exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal found that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned. The decision was supported by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in a similar case. The Tribunal referred to various High Court decisions where it was held that Section 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that disallowance under section 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year.

2. The second issue raised was regarding the charging of interest under section 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, since the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the disallowance under section 14A, the issue of interest under section 234B was considered consequential and did not require separate adjudication. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed based on the disallowance issue, and the matter of interest under section 234B was not addressed separately in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal based on the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of exempt income in invoking Section 14A and referred to relevant case law to support its decision. The issue of interest under section 234B was deemed consequential and was not separately addressed in the judgment.