AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi, ("CIT", for short) dated 04.09.2018 arising from the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ("the Act", for short) dated 29.03.2016 concerning Assessment Year 2013-14.
2 The issue involved is addition of Rs. 24,06,52,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
Aggrieved by the relief granted by the revenue of CIT(A), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal,
The Ld. CIT(DR) for Revenue relied upon the findings of the AO.
None appeared for the assessee.
We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. At the outset, we note that the assessee has not claimed any exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance is permissible in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. 372 ITR 97 (Guj.). In another judgment in the case of CIT vs. Vision Finstock Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 486 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has once again expressed the similar view and held that disallowance of expenditure in terms of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income itself. It is noticed that SLP(Civil) [Diary No. 13152/2018] filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Vision Finstock Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed on merits by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
05.2018. The reference is also made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chemivest Ltd. Vs. CIT 61 Taxmann.com 118 (Delhi). Thus, in the light of judicial precedents noted above, no disallowance is called for under s.14A of the Act. Hence, we see no error in the first appellate order and thus, decline to interfere.
In the result, captioned appeal by Revenue is dismissed.