18. os itxa 1938-17.doc R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1938 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 .. Appellant Versus Kamanwala Housing Construction Ltd .. Respondent Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr. N.A. Kazi for Appellant CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Malhotra, learned standing counsel, revenue for appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by revenue against order dated 15.2.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai "A" Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal" for short) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 921/Mum/2016 and 1404/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2011-12. 1 of 2 18. os itxa 1938-17.doc 3. Following two questions have been proposed as substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance u/S. 14A of Act ignoring that provisions of Section 14A of Act apply even if no exempt income is actually earned or received during year in any form whatsoever? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance u/S. 14A of Act by ignoring provisions of CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.2.2014 wherein it has been clarified that Rule 8D r/w Section 14A provides for disallowance of expenditure even where assessee in particulars has not earned exempt income? 4. Mr. Malhotra fairly submits that this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Vs. M/s. Kohinoor Project Pvt) decided on 27.1.2020 had answered above two questions in favour of assessee and against revenue. 5. In view of above, appeal is dismissed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitally signed by Ravindra Ravindra M. Amberkar M. Date: Amberkar 2020.01.31 14:48:21 +0530 2 of 2 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Kamanwala Housing Construction Ltd