Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 14A Rule 8D: The expression “does not form part of the total income” in s. 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income. If no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2016

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax3, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
Vs

M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited

Mr. Sharad N. Bhattad, counsel for the petitioner.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &

KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : 13.10.2016.

By this income tax appeal, the appellant–Department challenges the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 749/2014 {CHEMINVEST LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2015) 378 ITR 0033 (Delhi)}, which holds that the expression “does not form part of the total income” in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not apply to the facts of this case as no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actual income was received by the assessee and the same was includible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authorities held that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, they could not have been included in the total income.

The findings of facts recorded by both the Authorities do not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Since no substantial question of law arises in this income tax appeal, the income tax appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*