|CORAM:||D. Y. Chandrachud J, Hemant Gupta J|
|SECTION(S):||14A, Rule 8D|
|CATCH WORDS:||Disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D, exempt income|
|COUNSEL:||Vibha Dutta Makhija|
|DATE:||February 8, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||April 6, 2019 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 14A/ Rule 8D: In the absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D of the Act of any amount is not permissible (Essar Teleholdings 401 ITR 445 (SC) followed, Cheminvest 378 ITR 33 (Del) approved)|
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2755/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-02-2018
in ITA No. 197/2018 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18 Petitioner(s)
M/S OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.18849/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Date : 08-02-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv.
Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv.
Mr. Anas Zaidi, Adv.
Mr. T.C. Jirwa, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Mumbai vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. through its Manager [401 ITR 445 (SC)] (2018) 3 SCC 253, we see no reason to entertain this special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 197/2018
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
OIL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BOARD ….. Respondent
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R
The Revenue’s appeal challenges an order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the disallowance of
`1,62,49,000/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The Assessing Officer (AO) and later the CIT (A) made the
disallowance by taking into account only the investment patterns of
the assessee for the concerned assessment.
The ITAT relied upon the ruling of this Court in CheminvestLimited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33
which ruled in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance under
Section 14-A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. Since the
decision in Cheminvest Limited (supra) was followed, there is no
substantial question of law that requires consideration.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2018