Bombay High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Jsw Energy Ltd on 19 August, 2019
Author: Nitin Jamdar
Bench: M.S.Sanklecha, Nitin Jamdar
1 15 ITXA 699-17.doc
Sequeira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2017
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 4 .. Appellant
Vs
M/s. JSW Energy Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant.
CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA &
NITIN JAMDAR, JJ.
Date : 19 August, 2019.
P.C. :
This Appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961(the 'Act'), challenges the order dated 22 July 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal'). The Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2010-2011.
2. The Revenue urges the following two questions of law for our consideration :
"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.98,90,28,490/- made u/s.14A of the I.T.Act, by holding that no disallowance u/s.14A of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2019 20:58:41 ::: 2 15 ITXA 699-17.doc I.T.Act, is called for, once there is no exempt income received or receivable by the assessee during the relevant previous year as held by the Ld.CIT(A), relying on the judgment of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the AO to delete the addition worked out u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act relying on its own decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07 without considering that as per Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB, the book profits have to be increased by the expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income?"
3. Regarding Question (i).
a) It is an undisputed position that no exempt income was earned by the Respondent during the period relevant to the said Assessment Year. Thus the Tribunal held that there was no occasion to make any disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T.Act by following the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 378 ITR 33. The aforesaid decision has been followed accepted by this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Man Infraprojects Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.259 of 2017 decided on 9 April 2019.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2019 20:58:41 :::
3 15 ITXA 699-17.doc
b) In the above view, Question No.(i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.
4. Regarding Question (ii).
a) In the facts of the present case as admittedly there is no exempt income earned by Respondent-assessee no occasion to add the expenditure in terms of explanation (f) to section 115JB of the Act can arise. This has been so held by the impugned order of the Tribunal.
b) Nothing has been shown to us to hold against the above finding of the Tribunal. In the absence of any income the occasion to disallow the expenditure would not arise. Accordingly this question also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.
5. Appeal dismissed.
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2019 20:58:41 :::