Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No.22364/2023
CM No.22365/2023
1. These are applications filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing and re- filing the appeal.
1.1 According to the applicant/appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 105 days in filing and 125 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. Mr M.P. Rastogi, Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayers made in the applications.
3. Accordingly, the prayers made therein are allowed.
4. The applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 250/2023
5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015.
6. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. The only grievance of the appellant/revenue concerns the deletion of disallowance sustained by the Tribunal. The amount involved is Rs.3,12,87,693/-. According to the Tribunal, the respondent/assessee has not made any claim qua exempt income, and therefore, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was not sustainable.
7. There is no dispute
The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose 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's decision emphasized that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
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 specific judgments covering the issue and the absence of substantial questions of law for consideration.
No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the case.
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 absence of substantial question of law can lead to the closure of appeals.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an 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
