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 272 of 2023 & CM Nos.24777-78 of 2023
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Delay Condonation - Income Tax Appeal - The court allowed the appellant's application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, and disposed of the application accordingly. The appeal concerned the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, which was allowed by the court. The appeal concerned the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and accordingly closed the appeal.
Issues: The only issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the fact that the respondent had not earned any exempt income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on specific decisions and the fact that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was closed as the court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No.24778/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal]
1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
1.1. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 60 days.
2. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application.
3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
CM No.24777/2023
5. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
ITA 272/2023
6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
7. The appellant 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.3,24,69,741/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] given the fact that the respondent/assessee had not earned 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 specific judgments covering the issue and the absence of substantial questions of law for consideration.
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 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'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 influenced by its previous ruling on a similar issue, indicating the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.
No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the case.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
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.
The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
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
