Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue challenged the Tribunal order dated 16 November 2021 in IT(TP)A 2639/Bang/2019 for AY 2015-16. Its sole question challenged the Tribunal’s view that section 14A read with Rule 8D could not produce a disallowance where the assessee had no exempt income. The question referred to the issue not having attained finality and being pending before the Supreme Court.

Source: Appeal prayer and paragraph 3; PDF pp.1–2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The assessee relied on the coordinate Bench judgment dated 15 February 2021 in ITA 133/2015. Revenue did not dispute that the question was covered. The Court examined that judgment and held the question squarely covered; it did not reproduce the precedent’s detailed reasoning or undertake a fresh expenditure calculation.

Source: Paragraphs 4–7; PDF p.3

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The appeal was dismissed and the substantial question answered in favour of Trianz and against Revenue.

Source: Paragraph 7; PDF p.3

4. OUTCOME

The Tribunal’s no-exempt-income relief stood undisturbed for AY 2015-16. No remand, conditional stay or express review reservation was ordered.

Source: Paragraph 7; PDF p.3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Absence of exempt income is the decisive factual premise

The question before the Court is expressly framed around an assessee without exempt income. The resulting relief is therefore different from a dispute over the amount of expenditure attributable to existing exempt receipts. For practical comparison, establish that premise for the relevant year before using this decision; the judgment supplies no alternative Rule 8D calculation.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3

A pending challenge did not prevent applying the coordinate precedent

Revenue’s question invoked pendency before the Supreme Court, but the Court still applied ITA 133/2015 after recording undisputed coverage. That explains why the Tribunal’s relief survived here. It does not verify the present position of any Supreme Court proceeding or establish that a later development could never affect reliance on the precedent.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3

Keep the assessment year separate from later statutory questions

The appeal prayer expressly identifies AY 2015-16. The short judgment contains no analysis of a later amendment, retrospective operation or a different assessment year. Its disposition supports the stated no-exempt-income question in this appeal; extending it to another statutory setting requires material beyond this source.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3