Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 – Appellant
Versus
Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No.5866/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 180 days in re-filing the appeal]
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2.1. There is a delay of 180 days.
3. The reason given is that certain information was required from the Income Tax Department to remove the defects.
3.1. Although the reason is not satisfactory, given the fact that the impugned order was passed around the time when Corona Virus was raging in the city we are inclined to take a benevolent view.
4. According the delay is condoned.
5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 71/2023
6. This is an appeal directed against order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"].
7. The only issue which arises for consideration in the instant appeal concerns the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to Rs.3,14,71,557/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [
No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the case.
The court's decision was influenced by the principle that when an issue is already settled by previous decisions, it does not warrant further consideration.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of substantial question of law and the specific provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The court's decision was influenced by the specific judgments covering the issue and the absence of substantial questions of law for consideration.
The court's decision was influenced by the applicability of previous judgments and the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration.
The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The court's decision emphasized that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee.
The court's decision was based on the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
