Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central) - 4, Mumbai v. Man Infraprojects Ltd

1 / 2 03-ITXA-259-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.259 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) - 4, Mumbai .... Appellant versus Man Infraprojects Ltd. ….... ... Respondent •Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 09[th] APRIL, 2019. P.C. : 1. This Appeal is filed by the revenue against the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questionis presented for our consideration; “Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case andin law, the ITAT, Mumbai was justified in deleting thedisallowance of Rs.76,16,530/- made u/s 14A of the I.T.Act, by holding that no disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act, is called for, once there is no exempt income receivedor receivable by the assessee during the relevant previousyear?” 2. Undisputed facts are that the Respondent-Assessee had not received any exempt income during the period relevant tothe assessment year 2009-10, despite which Assessing Officersought to invoke the provisions of section 14A of the Income TaxAct 1961 and made disallowance of the expenditure. Delhi HighCourt in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, 378 ITR 33, held that in such a situation, disallowance ofthe expenditure under section 14A of the Act would not bepermissible. This decision was carried in Appeal filed by theRevenue before the Supreme Court. SLP has been dismissed.This Court, following the said decision in several cases, e.g. inIncome Tax Appeal No.1672/16 in case of The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-10 Vs. HSBC Invest Direct(India) Ltd. under order dated 04/02/2019 has dismissed theRevenue’s Appeal. 3. Under such circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)