ACIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI V. M MODEL GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 5918/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5744 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H N SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND SONDE
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 10B; 80IA; 201; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 5918 /MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2010 - 11 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15(2)(2), ROOM NO. 357, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHA VAN, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S M MODEL GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, 3 RD FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 3, MINDSPACE, AIROLI, PLOT NO. 3, KALWA TTC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MIDC, THANE BELAPUR ROAD, AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI 400708 PAN: AAACC9165 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI H.N . SINGH ( CIT DR ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARVIND SONDE (AR) DATE OF HEARING: 04/09 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 / 12 /201 8 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, J M T HE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (FOR SHORT THE CIT (A)) - 22 , MUMBAI , FOR THE A S S ESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 92CA (4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE A CT). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION INCLUDING QUALITY ASSURANC E, TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT, BACK OFFICE CO - ORDINATION , TRAINING AND CONSULTATION FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 11,96,10,714/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1), THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 2 ITA NO. 5918 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ASSESSEE (AR) APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10A/10AA/10B OF THE ACT WITHOUT SET TING OF F THE LOSSES OF OTHER ELIGIBLE/INELIGIBLE UNITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED AFTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IV AND VI OF THE ACT. THE AR CONTENDED THAT DEDUCTION U/S 10A IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED QUA THE UNDERTAKING WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PROFITS/LOSS OF OTHER UNITS. HOWEVER, T HE AO REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE SAID DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESS EE OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER - IV AND V I OF THE ACT. 3. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,89,25,501/ - AS ON 31.03.2010 AND RS. 12,05,06,855/ - AS ON 31.03.2009. ACC ORDINGLY, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY EXPENSES RELATING TO INVESTMENT, INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THEREOF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D . HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A REA D WITH RULE 8D AT RS. 5,13,787/ - . THE AO AFTER INTER ALIA MAKING THE SAID ADDITIONS COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ( - ) 26,50,951/ - UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RS. ( - ) 3,04,17,789/ - UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. IN THE FIRST APPE AL, THE LD. CIT (A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED BOTH THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL S ), T HE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S : - 3 ITA NO. 5918 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A), MUMBAI WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF PROFITS OF THE 10A UNIT ON STAND - ALONE BASIS WITHOUT AGGREGATION OF INCOME AND SET OFF OF LOSSES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10A/10B BY FINANCE ACT 2000, THE PROFITS OF THE 10A UNIT ARE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION BUT ELIGIBLE FOR DECUTIO N FROM TOTAL INCOME AND TOTAL INCOME IS LAIBLE TO BE COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(45) R.W.S. 5 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE BY ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF THE 10A UNIT PROFIT EXCLUSIVELY, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS IN EFFECT, TREATED THE PROFIT OF THE 10A UN IT AS EXEMPT, CONTRARY TO AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A), MUMBAI WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF PROFITS OF THE 10A UNIT ON STAND - ALONE BASIS WIT HOUT AGGREGATION OF INCOME AND SET OFF OF LOSSES, AND THEREBY IGNORING THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - 10 VS M/S GALAXY SUFACTANATS LTD. RENDERED IN FEBRUARY 2012, WHEREIN THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CLEA RLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 70, 71, 72 WOULD APPLY IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF 10A/10B UNDERTAKINGS AS THERE IS NO CLAUSE AKIN TO SECTION 80IA (5) OR 80IA(6) ENACTED IN SECTION 10A/10B. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IGNORING THE CBDT CLARIFICATION CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014, WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD THAT THE TERM INCLUDIBLE IN THE HEADING TO SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT AND ALSO HEADING TO RULE 8D OF IT RULES 1962 WHICH INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EXEMPT INCOME SHOULD BE NECESSARILY BE INCLUDED IN PARTICULAR YEARS INCOME FOR DISALLOWANCE TO BE TRIGGERED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE (DR) RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY 4 ITA NO. 5918 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF PROFITS OF THE 10A UNIT WITHOUT AGGREGATION OF INCOME AND SET OF F OF LOSSES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE AME NDMENT THE PROFIT OF 10A UNIT ARE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION BUT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION FROM TOTAL INCOME AND THE TOTAL INCOME IS LIABLE TO BE COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(45) R.W.S. 5 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT ( A) IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S GALAXY SUFACTANATS LTD . SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 70, 71 AND 72 WOULD APPLY IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF 10A /10B UNDERTAKINGS AS THERE IS NO CLAUSE AKIN TO SECTION 80IA(5) OR 80IA(6) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO. 8560/MUM/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08. SINCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE PERTAINING TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO INTERFERE WITH. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: - 5.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 8560/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2016 HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CITED JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER (SUPRA). ON PERUSAL CIT (A)S ORDER, WE FIND THE CIT (A) UNFAIRLY DISTINGUISHED THE SAID JUDGMENT AND RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTI ON BY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO 5 ITA NO. 5918 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 DEDUCTION U/S 10A SO FAR AS THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT IS CONCERNED AND THE LOSS OF OTHER UNIT (MUMBAI UNIT) SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AFTER S ET OFF AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS REQUIRED BY THE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE, THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08. SO FAR AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10, MUMBAI VS. GALAXY SURFACTANTS LTD., 343 ITR 108 (BOM.), RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE SAID CASE THAT LOSS OF 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT WHICH IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OF OTHER UNITS UNDER THE SAME HEAD. THUS WE SEE THAT THE AFORESAID CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON DIFFERENT FACTS. SIN CE, THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO INTERFERE WITH. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITIONAL D ISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN VIOLATION OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE EVEN WHERE TAX PAYER IN A PARTICULAR HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DELITE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., ITA NO. 110 OF 6 ITA NO. 5918 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 2009 AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE PUJNAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE C A SE OF WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD. 319 ITR 204 (P&H) , THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT 378 ITR 33 (DEL) , AND THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVAM MOTOR PVT. LTD., ITA NO. 8 OF 2014 , T HEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE. 11. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) READS AS UNDER: - 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE VARIOUS COURTS THAT SECTION 14A CANNOT BE INVOKED WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAKHANI MARKETING (ITA NO. 970/2008 DECIDED ON 2.04.2014), HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CORTECH ENERGY (P) LTD. [2014] 223 TAXMANN 130 (GUJ) AND THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD. (ITA NO. 88/2014 DECIDED ON 05.05.2014) HAVE ALL HELD THAT SECTION 14A CANNOT BE INVOKED WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. V. CIT ITR 33 (DEL) HAD ALSO HELD AS UNDER: - 23. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS ENUMERATED HEREINBEFORE THE COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION FRAMED BY HOLD ING THAT THE EXPRESSION DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME IN SECTION 14A OF THE ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A OVER AND ABOVE THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF ABUNDANT CAUTION IS DELETED. THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 2. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROS S OBJECTION (CO) OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION ALLOWABLE U/S 10A OF THE ACT WHEN TWO DIFFERENT UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE 7 ITA NO. 5918 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 PROFIT AND LOSS AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER (325 ITR 102) (BOM), WHICH PROVIDES FOR ALLOWING OF THE EXEMPTION OF GAINS FROM THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRY AND GRANTING THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS INCURRING UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE. BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 10 TO 17 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEES BANGALORE UNIT HAS THE PROFIT OF RS. 7.3 CRS (ROUNDED OFF), WHEREAS THE MUMBAI UNIT HAS THE LOSS OF RS. 1,35,67,920/ - . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN RE SPECT OF THE SAID RS. 7.3 CRS. HOWEVER, AO SET OFF THE SAID LO SS OF RS. 1,35,67,920/ - AGAINST THE PROFIT OF RS. 7.3 CRS THEREBY REDUCED THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. THIS ASPECT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER (SUPRA) AND PRESCRIBED THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION IN SUCH CASES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CITED JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER (SUPRA)/ ON PERUSAL CITS (A)S ORDER, WE FIND, THE CIT (A) UNFAIRLY DISTINGUISHED THE SAID JUDGMENT AND RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION BY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DED UCTION U/S 10A SO FAR AS THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT IS CONCERNED AND THE LOSS OF OTHER UNIT (MUMBAI UNIT) SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AFTER SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS REQUIRED BY THE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. ACCORDING LY, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARY ANA HIGH COURT, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CASES REFERRED ABOVE, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY, IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SINCE, THE FINDING S OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH COURTS IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASES , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF TH E LD. CIT (A) AND DISMI SS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8 ITA NO. 5918 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD DEC EMBER , 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( B.R. BASKARAN ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 03 / 12 / 201 8 ALINDRA, PS / C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI