IN 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 Appellant. CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. Date : 19 August, 2019. P.C. : This Appeal under section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961(the Act ), challenges order dated 22 July 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( Tribunal ). Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Revenue urges following two questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in deleting disallowance of Rs.98,90,28,490/- made u/s.14A of I.T.Act, by holding that no disallowance u/s.14A of 2 15 ITXA 699-17.doc I.T.Act, is called for, once there is no exempt income received or receivable by assessee during relevant previous year as held by Ld.CIT(A), relying on judgment of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT ? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in directing AO to delete addition worked out u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of Act while computing book profits under section 115JB of Act relying on its own decision in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 without considering that as per Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB, book profits have to be increased by expenditure incurred for earning exempt income? 3. Regarding Question (i). a) It is undisputed position that no exempt income was earned by Respondent during period relevant to said Assessment Year. Thus Tribunal held that there was no occasion to make any disallowance u/s.14A of I.T.Act by following decision of Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 378 ITR 33. 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 - 22/08/2019 09:52:43 ::: 3 15 ITXA 699-17.doc b) In 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 facts of present case as admittedly there is no exempt income earned by Respondent-assessee no occasion to add expenditure in terms of explanation (f) to section 115JB of Act can arise. This has been so held by impugned order of Tribunal. b) Nothing has been shown to us to hold against above finding of Tribunal. In absence of any income occasion to disallow 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.) Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-4 v. JSW Energy Ltd