Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal Upholds Deletion of Disallowance under Income Tax Act Section 14A

        ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi Versus M/s Wave Infratech Pvt Ltd.

        ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi Versus M/s Wave Infratech Pvt Ltd. - Tmi Issues Involved:
        1. Deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,13,08,541/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962.
        2. Validity of disallowance exceeding exempt income.
        3. Application of CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11/02/2014.
        4. Consideration of judicial precedents and relevant case laws.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Deleting the Disallowance under Section 14A:
        The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3,13,08,541/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The Revenue's argument, based on CBDT Circular No.5/2014, was that the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the circular which clarifies Rule 8D and Section 14A. The assessee's counsel countered that no exempt income was earned during the year, relying on the decision in Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del.). The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT 378 ITR 33(Del.) supports the assessee’s case. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)’s conclusion that no disallowance can be made when no exempt income is earned.

        2. Validity of Disallowance Exceeding Exempt Income:
        In ITA No.6607/Del/2016, the assessee argued that it had already made a disallowance to the extent of exempt income, and no further disallowance was permissible, citing Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.). The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions, including the case of Metropolitan Exim Chem Ltd. and Zoom Entertainment Network Ltd., which supported the assessee's position. The Tribunal reiterated that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, aligning with the ratio laid down in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.). Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the disallowance should not exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee.

        3. Application of CBDT Circular No.5/2014:
        The Revenue’s reliance on CBDT Circular No.5/2014 was addressed by the Tribunal, which noted that the circular clarifies Rule 8D and Section 14A but does not override judicial precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial decisions, such as those from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, take precedence over the circular, especially when no exempt income is earned during the relevant year.

        4. Consideration of Judicial Precedents and Relevant Case Laws:
        The Tribunal extensively discussed various judicial precedents, including the decisions in Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT, and others. It highlighted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Lakhani Marketing, and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Shivam Motors have consistently held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Baba Global Ltd. vs DCIT, where it was held that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal concluded that in both ITA No.6606/Del/2016 and ITA No.6607/Del/2016, the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. It affirmed the Ld. CIT(A)’s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of disallowance when no exempt income was earned. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the Tribunal directed that the disallowance, if any, should be restricted to the extent of the exempt income earned by the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 08/11/2017.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found