9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 266 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . Also Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred against Cheminvest Limited, which was dismissed [ 2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER] . Also whether the Finance Act, 2022 could have retrospective effect, the said aspect also stands covered by the judgment rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd . [ 2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Nikhil Jain, Adv. For the Respondent Through: None. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No. 50331/2023 1. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses would have been incurred in managing such investments. 10. However, the record shows, something which is not disputed by Mr Rai, that in the period in issue, i.e., AY 2015-16, the respondent/assessee had not earned any exempt income. It is sought to be contended by Mr Rai that this position, i.e., the applicability of Rule 8D of 1962 Rules, is clarified by Finance Act, 2022. 11. We are unable to agree with the submissions advanced by Mr Rai as both issues stand covered by judgments of this court. 11.1 Insofar as the issue concerning whether Section 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules could be triggered where no exempt income has been earned, it stands covered by the judgment rendered by this court in Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nn.com 250 (SC). The order passed by the Supreme Court reads as follows: The Special Leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 13. As regards, the other issue, i.e., whether the Finance Act, 2022 could have retrospective effect, the said aspect also stands covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 2022-DHC:2690-DB. 14. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal as, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 15. The appeal is, accordingly, closed. 16. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
