DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA V. UMA VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED, MIDDLETON STREET

ITA 1011/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the appeal of Uma Vinimay Private Limited, a core investment company of the Rika Group. The AO had treated the share capital and premium received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to ₹9,86,95,750. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, finding that the assessee had provided adequate evidence to substantiate the transactions. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779943 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax Officer Vs M/s. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., DCIT Vs Global Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd, CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd, CIT. vs. VRINDAVAN FARMS (P) LTD, PCIT vs M/s Maninya Comfin Pvt Ltd, PCIT vs M/s Sitka Mercantile Pvt Ltd, PCIT vs M/s Hirak Vyaapar Pvt Ltd, PCIT vs M/s Snowhite Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, PCIT vs M/s Outcome Buildcom Pvt Ltd, PCIT Vs. Naina Distributors Pvt Ltd, Pr. CIT vs Wise Investment Pvt Ltd, Pr. CIT Vs Vish Realty Solutions Pvt Ltd, CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd, ACIT v/s Eicher Ltd, CIT Vs M/s Mayawati, DCIT Vs Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd, PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P.N. BARNWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKKAL DUDHWEWALA; HOLDING
• Keywords: Set aside; Retrospective amendment; Unexplained cash credit; Fair market value; Income from undisclosed sources; Onus to prove; Valuation report; Accommodation entries; Earning of tax free income; Assessment record; Share purchase agreement; Rule 8D
• Section: 68; 131; 133(6); 14A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 1011/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle-4(2) Kolkata, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Vs. Uma Vinimay Private Limited, Room No.7G, 7th Floor, 8B, Geetanjali Apartment, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACU8770C Assessee by : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR Revenue by : Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR Date of hearing: 07.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 27, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] dated 15.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for AY 2014-15. 02. The first ground of the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of ₹9,86,95,750/- by the ld. CIT(A) which was made by the AO on account of share capital/ share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee is the core investment company of the Rika Group holding interests in shares & securities of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 the operating companies belonging to their group. The assessee filed the return of income on 22.09.2014 declaring nil income. The return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.09.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had received share capital of Rs.9,85,95,750/- from nineteen (19) share subscribers. With a view to verify the identity of the shareholders, genuineness of the transactions and their creditworthiness, the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to all the parties. In response, all the parties filed their replies. The AO noted that in six (6) cases, though the names of the share subscribers had underwent change but the share application forms contained their erstwhile names and therefore in AO’s view the identity of these six share subscribers was in doubt. The AO further observed that the creditworthiness of the remaining shareholders remained unestablished. Summarizing his observations, the AO noted that, the shares were issued at a premium of Rs.540/- which was unusually high and that the share subscribers did not comply the summons issued to them. The AO further observed that, though the share subscribers had filed their details but their financials revealed that they had NIL or nominal income. With these observations and after citing several decisions, the AO treated the share subscription monies of Rs.9,86,95,750/- received by the assessee during the year by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into consideration, the contentions and submissions of the assessee and the evidences filed by the assessee by observing and holding as under: “6.2.1. I have perused the assessment record as well as the submission of the assessee. It is observed that, the AO had made addition amounting to Rs. 9,85,95,750/- to the income of the assessee as Undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. The appellant company Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 has furnished the details of the transaction, proceeds being received from issue of Share Capital including premium amounting Rs. 9,85,95,750/-. The same was alleged by the AO in his order stating the 19 companies were non-existent at the time of application and allotment of shares. However, it may be noted that the Appellant has furnished the details of all the shareholders to whom the shares were allotted along with their Name, PAN, registered address, copy of bank statement evidencing the payment of money for share application. Furthermore, from the records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, these shareholders Company has been regular in filing the forms, annual return and audited financials with the Registrar of Companies. Though some of the shareholder company undergo name change as per the provisions of the Companies Act and the shares were issued to the shareholders citing the previous name on the share certificate, this may be considered as a clerical error and cannot be the reason to consider the amount received on issue of share as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. 6.2.2. As per Section 68 of the Act, any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The Appellant company has explained both the nature and source of the share application money received. The Appellant further proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and provided the details for source of income in the hands of the entities who have invested in the share capital of the Company. 6.2.3. The assessee to support its averments relied in the case of ‘Income Tax Officer Vs M/s. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)’, it was held that “the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and it was held that the onus shifted to AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee. This cannot be brushed aside by the AO to draw adverse view which cannot be countenanced. In the absence of any investigation, much less gathering of evidence by the Assessing Officer, an addition cannot be sustained merely based on inferences drawn by circumstance.” 6.2.4. In the case of ‘Income Tax Officer Vs M/s. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)’, where the following was held: “wherein the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. Thereafter, the onus shifted to AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee. This cannot be brushed aside by the AO to draw adverse view which cannot be countenanced. In the absence of any investigation, much less gathering of evidence by the Assessing Officer, we hold that an addition cannot be sustained merely based on inferences drawn by circumstance.”. 6.2.5. Further in the case of ‘DCIT Vs Global Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 1669/Kol/2009 dated 13-01 -2016’, the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata held as follows: “We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the detailed paper book filed by the assessee. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We find that the assessee had given the complete details about the share applicants clearly establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction proved beyond doubt and had duly discharged its onus in full. Nothing prevented the Learned AO to make enquiries from the assessing officers of the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 concerned share applicants for which every details were very much made available to him by the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned Ld. CIT(1) on the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) is very well founded, wherein, it has been very clearly held that the only obligation of the company receiving the share application money is to prove the existence of the shareholders and for which the assessee had discharged the onus of proving their existence and also the source of share application money received.” 6.2.6. In the recent judgement of ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'D', in the case of ‘K.P. Manish Global Ingredients (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle- II(4), Chennai’ wherein it is held that:- “the Assessing Officer has made additions towards unsecured loan received from three firms belonging to assessee group on the ground that said loan transactions are nothing but accommodation entries of the assessee's own unaccounted income in form of unsecured loans. All these transactions are routed through proper banking channel. The assessee has also proved source of income for said amount, which is out of commission received by those creditors from various companies. Therefore, from the above details, it is very clear that the assessee has proved identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of loan creditors. All these evidences are part of paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the Assessing Officer to allege that unsecured loans received by the assessee was not explained with necessary evidences. Therefore, the assessee has discharged its burden cast upon under section 68 by filing various details including financial statement of creditors, their bank statements and confirmation letters to prove transactions. Once an assessee discharged its burden, then burden shifts to Assessing Officer to prove otherwise that said transaction was nothing but undisclosed income of the assessee. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to prove that said amount was undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was completely erred in making additions towards unsecured loans received from three companies of the assessee group. The assessee has discharged burden cast upon under section 68 to prove unsecured loans received from three companies. The Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner (Appeals) without appreciating the evidences filed by the assessee has simply made additions on suspicious ground that said sum was undisclosed income of the assessee. Hence, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be set aside and the Assessing Officer is to be directed to delete additions made towards unsecured loans received from three entities.” 6.2.7. Furthermore, in the case of ‘CIT. vs. VRINDAVAN FARMS (P) LTD’, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “low return of income is not sufficient to doubt the creditworthiness of the shareholders”. 6.2.8. After considering all the documents, evidences, paper book and information submitted by the Appellant the AO cannot treat the share application money including premium received by the appellant Company from all its subscribers as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 6.2.9. Further, in the case of ‘Income Tax Officer-1(3)(2), vs Singhal General Traders Private’, the Hon’ble High Court (Mumbai) held that “I am of the view that the Appellant company has submitted all the requisite documents but the AO due to time constraints or whatsoever reason not considered the same while passing the Order. Also, there is no relation between amount of premium charged and return on investment as the valuation of shares was done by Chartered Accountant firm, which is an independent valuer.” 6.2.10. In view of the above discussions and judicial pronouncements, the disallowance is not needed. Hence, the addition is liable to be deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is “allowed”.” 05. The Ld. DR strongly controverted and opposed the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by submitting that the share subscribers were lacking creditworthiness. According to him, the assessee had reported NIL income during the year and therefore it could not have commanded share premium of Rs.540/-. He further submitted that the share subscribers had the characteristics of shell entities having meagre income, no assets etc. and therefore the AO had rightly held that these shareholders were unworthy. The Ld. DR has filed written submissions inter alia citing several judicial precedents in support of his arguments which has been taken on record. 06. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR, while referring to the evidences filed by the assessee as well as by the subscribers in response to notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, submitted that the assessee as well as the subscribers have filed all the evidences proving the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers as well as genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. AR also submitted that, when the lenders had complied with the notices u/s 133(6) which were issued and served through registered post, the impugned addition could not be made on the ground that there was no compliance to summon issued u/s. 131 of the Act upon the lenders. The ld. AR further pointed out that, subsequent to the amendments made in Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012, the share capital was required to be issued Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 at their fair value determined in terms of Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Taking us through the valuation report which was placed on Pages 31 to 45 of Paper book, he showed that the intrinsic value of the shares of the assessee was Rs.547/- in terms of Rule 11UA and therefore the issuance of shares at a premium of Rs.540/- was justified and in accordance with law. In so far as the mismatch of names in the share application forms was concerned, the assessee explained that, the share application forms were filed much prior to the change of their name(s) and therefore at the time of allotment, though the names had changed, the share certificates were issued in the original names of the shareholders, as was mentioned in the share application forms. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, it is seen that the assessee is a core investment company of the Rika Group. During the year, the assessee had raised share capital of Rs.9,85,95,750/- from nineteen (19) subscribers by issuing 1,79,265 equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 540/- per share, the details whereof is at Page 46 of Paper book. We note that the AO had made independent enquiries from the share investors u/s 133(6) of the Act and each of them had duly furnished evidences including their ITRs, bank statements, audited financial statements and confirmations etc. It is noted that, three of the share subscribers, namely, Balajee Vinimay Pvt Ltd, Rika Global Impex Pvt Ltd and Ohm Arts Pvt Ltd were group companies namely; from whom ₹2.82 crores in aggregate had been received as investment/ subscription. It is noted that the Rika Global Impex Pvt Ltd had returned income of Rs.1084.36 lacs and that Balajee Vinimay Pvt Ltd had filed return of income of Rs.10.96 lacs and that there were common director(s) and common shareholding in these entities. In light of these facts, we are in agreement with the Ld. AR that, the bald observations made by the AO doubting the identity and creditworthiness of all the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 share subscribers in a sweeping manner was unjustified and that the AO had not cited any basis or material for alleging so. 08. It is seen that each of these shareholders had filed all the relevant documents which they were required to maintain in the ordinary course of business to substantiate their identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AR has filed a detailed paper book which is comprising of the documents furnished by these nineteen (19) shareholders in response to notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, which is available from page no. 65 to 463 of the paper book. The share investors are noted to have filed all the documents including their bank statements, ITR acknowledgement, audited accounts, confirmations etc. Having gone through these documents, we are in full agreement with the ld. CIT(A) that the shareholders had filed the relevant evidences to discharge their onus of substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. 09. Coming to the reasonableness of the share premium which was doubted upon by the Ld. DR, we observe that the shares were issued at the prevailing fair market value of the assessee computed in terms of Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA of the Rules. Having gone through the copy of the valuation report, which is found at Pages31 to 45 of the paper book that, the intrinsic value of shares of the assessee was higher than book value due to the market value of the shares & securities held by it due to which the shares issued during the year commanded a premium. 010. With respect to creditworthiness not being there in case of subscribers, we are of the opinion that the mere fact that they had meagre recurring income is not relevant and creditworthiness cannot be doubtful when their own funds are several times the investment made in the assessee company. The case of the assessee find support Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Mayawati 338 ITR 563(Del). Also, the doubts raised by the AO on the identity of share subscribers due to mismatch of names in share certificates is found to be superfluous. It is observed that, the names of six (6) share subscribers were changed just prior to the allotment of shares but after the filing of share application forms with the assessee and therefore understandably, the allotment / share certificates, which were issued later on, carried their erstwhile names. 011. As for the non-compliance of summons u/s 131 of the Act is concerned, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Orissa Corporation Pvt Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC) wherein it has been held that where the assessee has discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the of creditors and genuineness of the transactions, no addition can be made on the ground of non-compliance to the summons u/s 131 of the Act. The case of the assessee is also squarely covered by a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court namely i) PCIT vs M/s Maninya Comfin Pvt Ltd. ITAT/271/2023 IA No.: GA/1/2023 dated 1.5.2025, ii) PCIT vs M/s Sitka Mercantile Pvt Ltd ITAT/68/2024IA No.: GA/2/2024,iii)PCIT vs M/s Hirak Vyaapar Pvt Ltd ITAT/242/2023 IA No.: GA/1/2023 dated 3.5.2024, iv) PCIT vs M/s Snowhite Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITAT/108/2024 IA No. :GA/2/2024 dated 15.5.2024, v) PCIT vs M/s Outcome Buildcom Pvt Ltd ITAT/3/2024 IA No. :GA/1/2024 dated 3.5.2024, vi) PCIT Vs. Naina Distributors Pvt Ltd ITAT/113/2023IA No. GA/1/2023 dated 28.06.2023, vii) Pr. CIT vs Wise Investment Pvt Ltd ITAT/238/2024 IA No. GA/2/2024 dated 06.05.2025, viii) Pr. CIT Vs Vish Realty Solutions Pvt Ltd ITAT/74/2025 IA No. GA/2/2025 dated 10.07.2025wherein it has been held that where the assessee has discharged its burden of proof by satisfying all three conditions as Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 envisaged u/s 68 of the Act and therefore no addition u/s 68 of the Act is called for. 012. For the above reasons and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or defect in the order of the ld. CIT (A) which warrant our interference. Accordingly, we uphold the appellate order by dismissing this ground of the Revenue 013. The second issue raised by the Revenue in Ground Nos. 2 & 3 is against the deletion of addition by the learned CIT (A) of ₹ 51,123/- as made by the learned AO u/s 14A of the Act. 014. The facts in brief are that during the impugned financial year, the assessee has not earned any exempt income from the investments in shares and securities. The learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that though the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year but that the investments were capable of yielding exempt income in the subsequent years, and accordingly, by following the CBDT Circular No.5/2014, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and made an addition of ₹51,123/-. 015. The learned CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the contentions of the assessee by holding and observing as under: “7.2.1. I have perused the assessment order as well as the submission of the assessee. It isobserved that the AO had disallowed Rs. 51,123/- u/s 14A on the grounds that theexpenditure incurred in respect to income not includable to total income of the assessee. However, the appellant company stated that it has not earned any income exempt u/s 10(34)of the Act. Further, as per the details of expenditure furnished by the Appellant company,none of the expenditure is of the nature which is incurred to earn exempt income. Further,the AO is of the view that the Appellant has not earned any dividend income. No exemptincome was earned during the year and hence expenditure cannot be claimed against NILexempt income. 7.2.3. The assessee had also relied on the pronouncement In the case of ‘CIT Vs. HeroCycles Limited, 323 ITR 518’ and ‘CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 319 ITR 204’, where it was held that “Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned”.Further in the case of ‘ACIT v/s Eicher Ltd (2006) 101 TTJ 309 (Del)’ it has been decidedthat “burden of proving, on the basis of evidence or material on record, that the Assesseehas in fact incurred expenditure to earn the exempt income was on the Assessing Officer andnothing could be disallowed u/s 14A on an estimate basis.” 7.2.4. After giving handful consideration to the matter and in view of the aforesaidjudgements, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is liable to be made applying Rule 8D(2) andtherefore the addition is liable to be deleted. Hence, this ground of appeal raised by theassessee is “allowed”. 016. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. in ITA Nos.1079 to 1082/Kol/2025 dated 26.08.2025, wherein it was held as follows: - “11. The facts in brief are that during the impugned financial year, the assessee has not earned any exempt income from the investments in shares and securities. The learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that though the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year but that the investments were capable of yielding exempt income in the subsequent years, and accordingly, invoked the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and made an addition of ₹1,38,084,438/-. The learned CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the contentions of the assessee by holding and observing as under: \"3.19 On a perusal of the facts of the case, it is evident that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. It has been contended by the assessee that nodisallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act in the absence of any exempt income earned during the year it has been held by hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of REI Agro [2022] 140 taxmann.com 71 and GKK Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 192(Cal) that no disallowance can be made u/s 14A in absence of exempt income earned during the year. However, section 14A was amended by Finance Act 2022. Post amendment to section 14A, disallowance u/s 14A can be made even if no exempt income is earned by the assessee. The issue whether the amendment to section 14A of the Act made by Finance Act, 2022 is retrospective or prospective has been settled by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd [448 ITR 674] wherein the Hon'ble Court held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non-obstante clause and Explanation will take effect from 1-4-2022 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. 3.20 find that the ratio laid down in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (Supra) judgment dt. 20/07/2022, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 ITA No.1011/KOL/2024 Uma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 the amendment made in Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022, will be applicable prospectively and also held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year, is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. In view of the same, I hold that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is called for in the present case. Hence the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.1,38,84,438/- is hereby deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.\" After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the various decisions of judicial forums, wherein Hon'ble Courts have held that where there is no exempt income, no disallowance is called for u/s 14A of the Act. We note that the appellate order passed by the learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (Supra) and is a very reasoned and speaking order and does not require any interference at our end. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground no. 13 of revenue's appeal.” 017. Following the above, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and accordingly dismiss these grounds of the Revenue. 018. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 15.10.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "