Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (central) – Appellant
Versus
M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. – Respondent
ITA 266 of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Delay Condonation - Income Tax Appeal - The court allowed the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. The only issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, given that the respondent had not earned any exempt income. The court found that the issue was covered by specific judgments and concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal was closed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/revenue filed an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal concerning Assessment Year 2016-17. The only issue for consideration was the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the delay condonation application and found that the issue raised in the appeal was covered by specific judgments. It concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and closed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, given the absence of exempt income for the respondent/assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the issue was covered by specific judgments and concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Final Decision: The appeal was closed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.23547/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM Appl.23548/2023
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2.1. According to the appellant/revenue, the period of delay involved is 60 days.
3. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application.
4. The delay is, accordingly, condoned.
5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 266/2023
6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"].
8. The only issue which arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs.5,75,90,145/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] given the fact that the respondent/assessee has not earned any exempt income.
8.1. Mr Kumar cannot but accept, that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered inter alia by the following judgments:
(i) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT, (2015) 378 ITR 33
(ii) CIT v. M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras)
(iii) Judgment dated 03.05.2023 passed in ITA 250/2023 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. M/s Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd.
9. Insofar as the Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC).
10. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
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 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 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 applicability of previous judgments and the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration.
The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial question of law arising for consideration and the coverage of the issue by a previous court decision.
No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the case.
The court's decision was influenced by its previous ruling on a similar issue, indicating the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.
The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The incriminating material found during the search must concern the assessment year in issue for the proceedings to be valid.
The court has the discretion to allow condonation of delay in re-filing appeals and may grant liberty to file a writ petition based on previous judgments.
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
