GMR Enterprises Private Limited, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 2146/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4211 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL JAIN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 10; 2; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 2145 , 2 146 & 2 148 /BANG/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 0 - 11, 2011 - 12 & 2013 - 1 4 M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, (SUCCESSOR TO GMR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED), NO. 25/1, SKIP HOUSE, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AAACN6998D VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT (DR - II) DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 .0 2 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 0 2 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-11, BANGALORE ALL DAT ED 26.09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2013-14. ALL THESE APPE ALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 2145/BANG/2016 ARE AS UNDER. GROUND I: DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRACT EXPENSES AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 255,00,000/-: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), BANGALORE (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS AO) IN DISALLOWINGTHE CLAIM OF CONTRACT EXPENSES OF RS.2.55 CR BY ITA NOS. 2145, 2146 & 2148/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 8 TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITALLOSS OF THE PRIOR PERIO D. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HE LD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED SAID PROJECT EXPENSES IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND IN TERMS OF THE EPC CONTRACT AND HAD I NCURRED LOSS IN THE SAID PROJECT DUE TO SUBSTANTIAL INCREASEIN MATE RIAL COST, SUBCONTRACTORS COST, ETC. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE H ELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED /RECEIVED THE CONTRACT RECEIPT FROM THE SAID PROJECT CONTRACT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND HAD OFFER ED THE SAME FOR TAX IN THOSE EARLIER YEARS AND THE APPELLANT HADTO BEAR THE ADDITIONAL COST AND COMPLETE THE PROJECTS TO AVOID LIQUIDATEDDAMAGE S. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HASERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD MADE A PROVISION OF RS. 3.10CRORES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 FOR PENDING WORKS WITH RESPECT TO THE AMABALA CHANDIGRAH ROAD PROJECT AND AGAINST THIS PROVISION FOR EXPENSES, BILLS AND EXTRA CLAIMS OF EXPENSES WERE RECEIVED AT RS. 5.65 CRORES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AMOUNT OF CO NTRACT EXPENSES OF RS.2.55 CR INCURRED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND II: GROUND II :DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.11,88,25,672/- U/S.14A AS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INC OME OF RS.26,52,083/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS CLAIMED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.2 6,52,083/- EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT AO BE DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S 14A OF RS.26,52,083/-BEING TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR. GROUND II: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND/OR AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NOS. 2145, 2146 & 2148/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 8 3. IN THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED SOME ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED AND HENCE, THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED AND WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS. 4. SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 2146/BANG/2016 ARE AS UNDER. GROUND I : DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.1,67,39,653/- U/S.14A AS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INC OME OF RS.25,86,000/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS CLAIMED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.2 5,86,000/- EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT AO BE DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S 14A OF RS.25,86,000/-BEING TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR. GROUND II: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND/OR AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO A DDITIONAL GROUNDS BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THESE ADDITION AL GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY, THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS A RE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED AND WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS. 6. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 2148/BANG/2016 ARE AS UNDER. GROUND I : DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.31,32,540/- U/S.14A AS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INC OME OF RS.NIL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS CLAIMED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.N IL EARNED BY THE ITA NOS. 2145, 2146 & 2148/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 8 APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT AO BE DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S 14A OF RS.NIL BEING TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR. GROUND II: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND/OR AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 TOGETHER BECAUSE THIS WAS THE SUBMISSIO N OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS IN DISPUTE IN THESE TWO YEA RS ARE IDENTICAL. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF C ONTRACT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 255 LAKHS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY THIS GRO UND IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. THE REMAINING ISSUE IN THESE TWO YEARS IS REGARD ING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE IT ACT. REGARDING THIS ISSUE, IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS TO BE RESTRICTED BY C ONSIDERING ONLY THOSE INVESTMENT ON WHICH DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE HAS BEEN P LACED ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2017] 165 ITD 27 (DELHI-TRIB.). HE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR DIRECTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AO. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPT ED TO REDUCE THE DISALLOWANCE BELOW SUCH AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE SUO MOTO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON C BDT CIRCULAR NO. 549 DATED 31.10.1989. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THIS CBDT C IRCULAR HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. DR OF REVENUE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY HER. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, WE REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PARA OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 549 DATED 31.10. 1989 REPRODUCED BY THE LD. DR OF REVENUE IN HER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE SAME IS AS UNDER. 5.12 SINCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE NEW SECTION 143, AS ASSESSMENT IS NOT TO BE MADE NOW, THE PROVI SIONS OF SUB- ITA NOS. 2145, 2146 & 2148/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 8 SECTIONS (2) AND (3) HAVE ALSO BEEN RECAST AND ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE OLD PROVISIONS. A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), WHICH WILL BE ISSUED ONLY IN CASES PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY, IS NOW ISSUED ONLY TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED HIS IN COME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDERPAID THE TA X IN ANY MANNER WHILE FURNISHING HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 10. ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE LD. AR OF ASS ESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UTI BANK LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2014] 223 TAXMAN 157 (GUJARAT) AND RELIANCE WAS AL SO PLACED ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RUPEE FINANC E & MANAGEMENT (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT AS REPORTED IN [2017] 81 TAXMANN.COM 249 (MUMBAI-TRIB.). FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE PARA NO. 9 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RUPEE FINANCE & MANAG EMENT (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). THE SAME IS AS UNDER. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES BEFORE US. IT IS WELL SETTLED AND HAS BEEN ECHOED SO AT NUMBER OF OCCASIONS BY HON'BLE SU PREME COURT AND MANY OTHER COURTS OF OUR COUNTRY THAT OBJECTIVE OF THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS IS TO DETERMINE THE TAXABLE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE AND TAX PAYABLE THEREON, FAIRLY AND AS PER LAW ONLY. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT ARTICLE 265 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ALSO PROVIDES IN EXPRESS TERMS THAT NO TAX CAN BE COLLECTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. I T IS ALSO NOTED BY US THAT WAY BACK IN 1955, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE (NOW CALLED AS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) HAD ISSUED A CIRCULA R WHEREIN GUIDANCE WAS GIVEN TO THE AOS THAT THEY SHOULD ASSE SS TAXABLE INCOME AND COMPUTE THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE TAXPAYERS IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW ONLY AND THEY SHOULD NOT TAKE UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF IG NORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE, ANY DEDUCTION IS OMITTED TO BE C LAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE AND IF SAME IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE A S PER LAW, THEN THE AO SHOULD, IN ALL FAIRNESS, GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FURTHER, ON THIS ISSUE, OUR ATTENTION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DRAWN UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO LTD. (SUPRA) WHE REIN IT WAS OBSERVED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A PARTICULAR DEDUCTION OR NOT WILL DEPE ND ON THE PROVISION OF LAW RELATING THERETO AND NOT ON THE VIEW, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY TAKE AND NOR CAN THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF ENTRIE S IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BE DECISIVE OR CONCLUSIVE IN THE MATTER. SI MILARLY, IN THE CASE OF INDIA DISCOUNT CO LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS INTER-ALI A OBSERVED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED T HAT A RECEIPT WHICH IN LAW CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCOME CANNOT BECOME S O MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY CREDITED IT TO THE P & L ACCOUNT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN OTHER JUDGEMENTS REL IED UPON BY THE ITA NOS. 2145, 2146 & 2148/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 8 LD. COUNSEL. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IF ASSES SEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT INCOME HAS BEEN WRONGLY OFFERED BY HIM TO TAX IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS LEGAL RIGHT TO RESILE FROM HIS RETURN SO LONG AS ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE IN COME RETURNED BY HIM IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND REQUISITE FAC TS IN THIS REGARD ARE PLACED ON RECORDS. THIS VERY ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BHARAT GENERA L INSURANCE CO. LTD [1971] 81 ITR 303. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE AND FAIR PLAY TO DEMONSTRATE AND ESTABLISH THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE U/ S 14A IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. AS PER THIS PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT, WE FEEL THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT OF LD. DR OF REVENUE THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A CANNOT BE LOWER THAN THE AMOU NT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IF AS PE R LAW, LOWER DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED. THIS ARGUMENT OF LD. DR OF REVENUE I S REJECTED. 12. NOW WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TRIBUNA L ORDER CITED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT V S. VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). AS PER THIS ORDER OF THE SPECIA L BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS HELD AS PER PARA 11.16 OF THIS ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FO R COMPUTING AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DUR ING THE RELEVANT YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE TO B E MADE U/S. 14A ON THIS BASIS. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FIELD BY THE AS SESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 14. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REMAINING APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. IN THIS YEAR, THIS WAS THE ARGUMENT OF LD . AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED IN THIS YEAR AND T HEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S. 14A AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST PVT. LTD. VS. CIT AS REPORTE D IN (2015) 378 ITR 33. ITA NOS. 2145, 2146 & 2148/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 8 REGARDING THIS ASPECT THAT THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOM E IN THIS YEAR, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NOS. 69 TO 95 OF PAPER BOOK. IT WAS POINTE D OUT THAT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT ON PAGE NO. 81 OF PAPER BOOK, THERE IS REVE NUE FROM OPERATIONS AND OTHER INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SCHEDULE N O. 18 IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 90 OF THE PAPER BOO K WHICH SAYS THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME IN THIS YEA R. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. DR OF REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LALLY MOTORS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. PR. CIT AS REPORTED IN [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 39 (AMRITSAR-TRIB.) AND ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT VS. CIT AS REPORTED I N [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRS T WE DEAL WITH THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TWO JUDGEMENTS CITED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE. AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT VS. CIT (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT DOMINA NT PURPOSE FOR WHICH INVESTMENT INTO SHARES IS MADE BY ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE RELEVANT AS SECTION 14A APPLIES IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SHARES ARE HELD TO GAIN CONTROL OR AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT RELEVANT TO DECIDE THIS ASPECT THAT WHETHER DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A IS TO BE MADE IN A YEAR IN WHICH THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME. 16. NOW WE DEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED BY LD . DR OF REVENUE RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LALLY MOTORS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. PR. CIT (SUPRA). IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SINCE, THE JUDGM ENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE ON THIS ASPECT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS TO BE MADE IN A YEA R IN WHICH THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME, ANY ADVERSE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FOLLOWED BY IGNORING THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CH EMINVEST PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A. ITA NOS. 2145, 2146 & 2148/BANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 8 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) (LALIET KUMA R) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.