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 263 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Delay Condonation - Income Tax Appeal - The court allowed the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, as there was no opposition from the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to appeal the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2015-16, specifically challenging the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue raised by the appellant was already covered by previous decisions and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Issues: The only issue for consideration was whether the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be deleted when the assessee had not availed of any exempt income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions to conclude that the issue raised by the appellant was already settled and did not warrant further consideration.
Final Decision: The appeal was closed as the court found no substantial question of law to be considered.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 23111/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM APPL. 23112/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal]
2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 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. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
5. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 263/2023
6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"].
8. The only issue which arises for consideration, according to Mr Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, is whether disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"], read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short, Rules] can be deleted, in a situation when the assessee had not availed of any exempt income?
9. This issue stands covered by the following decisions:
(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.
10. Insofar as Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in (2018)95 taxmann.com 250 (SC).
11. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
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.
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 applicability of previous judgments and the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration.
No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the case.
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 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.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income earned by the assessee.
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
