Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 15 vs Hcc Concessions Ltd
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM020202742018
2026:BHC-OS:23547-DB
ITXA-2702-2018 Judgment.doc
Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAEKWAD
Date:
2026.10.30
15:00:34
+0530
GAURI
AMIT
GAEKWAD
Gauri Gaekwad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2702 OF 2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX – 15,
Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Mumbai – 400 020. …APPELLANT
~ versus ~
HCC CONCESSIONS LTD.,
th
Hincon House, 11 Floor, 247 Park,
LBS Marg, Vikroli (W), Mumbai –
…RESPONDENT
APPEARANCE
For the Appellant Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma.
For the Respondent Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah.
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
st
RESERVED ON : 1 OCTOBER 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 30 OCTOBER 2026.
JUDGMENT ( Per Gautam Ankhad, J) :-
1. The matter is heard finally at the stage of admission, with the
consent of the parties.
Page 1 of 6
th
30 OCTOBER, 2026.
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 15:25:32
ITXA-2702-2018 Judgment.doc
2.
The Appellant-Revenue has preferred this Appeal under
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), challenging
rd
the order dated 3 January, 2018 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“the Tribunal”), in relation to
Assessment Year 2012-13.
3. The Respondent-Assessee is a company engaged in the
business of infrastructure development, which it carries on both
directly and through its subsidiaries. By an assessment order dated
th
13 March, 2015, the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure of
Rs.17.57 crores under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of
the Income Tax Rules, 1962, on the ground that the expenditure was
incurred in relation to income which did not form part of the total
income. The amount so disallowed was added to the total income of
the Assessee.
4.
The Assessee challenged the assessment order and the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] by its order
th
dated 10 August, 2016 partly allowed the Appeal and held that
Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed an Appeal before
the Tribunal.
Page 2 of 6
th
30 OCTOBER, 2026.
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 15:25:32
ITXA-2702-2018 Judgment.doc
5.
After considering the record, the Tribunal noted the factual
findings of the CIT(A) that the Assessee had not earned any exempt
income during the relevant Assessment Year. It also took note of the
finding that the Assessee’s own funds were in excess of the
investments made. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of exempt
income during the relevant Assessment Year and claim of
expenditure made against such income, no disallowance could be
made under Section 14A of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, the
Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in
1
Cheminvest Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax . The Tribunal
accordingly dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal by the impugned order
rd
dated 3 January, 2018.
6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant, referred to the
following substantial questions of law framed in the Appeal paper-
book and submitted that the same ought to be considered by this
Court :
I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law,
in deleting the addition of Rs.17,57,51,160/- made
on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of
the Income Tax Act, holding that no disallowance
1 . (2015) 378 ITR 33
Page 3 of 6
th
30 OCTOBER, 2026.
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 15:25:32
ITXA-2702-2018 Judgment.doc
u/s 14A is called for, when there is no exempt
income received by the assessee during the year
under consideration?
II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law,
in deleting the addition of Rs.17,57,51,160/- made
on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of
the Income Tax Act, ignoring the CBDT Circular
No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014, wherein it is clarified
that even if there is no exempt income earned by
the assessee in the year under consideration,
disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax
Rules read with Section 14A of the Income Tax
Act is required to be made?
7.
We are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Sharma.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 260A of the Act is
confined to substantial questions of law arising from the orders of
the Tribunal. The principles governing the determination of what
constitutes a substantial question of law has been stated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments including in Sir
Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v/s. The Century Spinning and
2
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Vijay Kumar Talwar v/s.
3
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi. In our view, the questions
formulated by the Appellant are based on facts and do not give rise
2 . AIR 1962 SC 1314
3 . 2011 (1) SCC 673
Page 4 of 6
th
30 OCTOBER, 2026.
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 15:25:32
ITXA-2702-2018 Judgment.doc
to a substantial question of law warranting the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 260A of the said Act.
8. Secondly, in the present case, the concurrent findings
recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is that the Assessee did not
earn any exempt income during the relevant Assessment Year and
the disallowance under Section 14A could not have been made by
the Assessing Officer. The Appellant has not demonstrated that
these findings are unsupported by the material on record or
perverse. In the absence of any such infirmity, the concurrent
findings of fact does not warrant interference in an Appeal under
Section 260A of the Act.
9.
In addition, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the Respondent,
rd
has tendered a copy of the order dated 23 April, 2019 passed in
M/s. Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income
4
Tax, Circle -1(2), Mumbai and submits that this Court has
considered the question concerning disallowance under Section 14A
of the said Act in the absence of exempt income and has decided the
same in favour of the Assessee. Therefore, the legal issue sought to
be raised by the Revenue does not survive for consideration by this
4 . Income Tax Appeal No.149 of 2017
Page 5 of 6
th
30 OCTOBER, 2026.
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 15:25:32
ITXA-2702-2018 Judgment.doc
Court. After examining the said decision of this Court, we find
ourselves in agreement with such submission of Mr. Shah.
10. The Appeal, therefore, does not merit admission and is
accordingly dismissed.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
Page 6 of 6
th
30 OCTOBER, 2026.
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 15:25:32
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)