TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Dismisses Appeal on Tax Disallowance; No Exempt Income Found, No Substantial Legal Question Raised.</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 4 Versus IL And Fs Energy Development Co Ltd</h3> The court condoned a 285-day delay in re-filing the appeal by the appellant/revenue. Regarding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Revenue disallowed the expenditure even there is no income i.e., dividend by taking recourse to Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- As assessee had not earned any exempt income.There is no dispute, that this issue is covered by a judgment Cheminvest Limited[2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] also confirmed by SC [2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER] - No substantial question of law arises. Issues:- Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal- Deletion of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961Condonation of Delay:The applications were moved by the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of a 285-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The delay was condoned based on the reasons provided in the applications, and the applications were disposed of accordingly.Deletion of Disallowance u/s 14A:The appeals pertained to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and AY 2014-15. The only question raised in the appeals was regarding the deletion of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In ITA 316/2023, the disallowance was quantified at Rs.12,50,66,466, while in ITA 317/2023, the deletion of disallowance was Rs.8,41,21,936. It was found that the respondent/assessee had not earned any exempt income during the period in question. The issue was already covered by judgments of the coordinate bench of the Court, and it was noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
