SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 9931

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
ACIT CIRCLE 16(1) DELHI – Appellant
Versus
MCGRAW HILL EDUCATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD DELHI – Respondent
ITA 441/DEL/2024[2017-18]



##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.441/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2017-18]

ACIT vs MCGRAW Hill Education (India) Circle-16(1) Pvt. Ltd., 44/1, Sri Ekabara Delhi Naickr Industrial Estate,

Alapakkam, Porur, Tamil Nadu-600116.

PAN-AAACM6334J APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Revenue by Shri Yogeshwer Sharma, Sr. DR Assessee by S/Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv.

Devvrat Tiwari, Adv. &

Drona Negi, Adv.

Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated

04.12.2023 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-6/10608/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 26.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment

Year 2017-18.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited company incorporated on 28.10.2010 under The Companies Act,

##PAGE2##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

1956 and is engaged in the business of delivering education solutions to schools, higher education, professional and health care market. The return of income was e-filed on 29.09.2017, declaring NIL income. Thereafter, in terms of the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) approving the scheme of merger with appointed date on 01.04.2016, the assessee e-filed revised return on 29.03.2019 wherein assessee has declared income of INR 38,86,25,756/- under normal provision of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed by disallowing the set off of brought forward business of INR

4,02,40,643/-.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has made fresh claim of depreciation of INR 22,33,986/- through revised computation before the AO which

was not allowed.

4. Ld.CIT(A) in terms of the order dated 04.12.2023 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee where the claim of assessee of set- off of brought forward unabsorbed losses u/s 79 of the Act was allowed and further claim of depreciation in terms of revised computation of income of INR 22,33,986/- made through revised

return before the AO which was also allowed.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising various Grounds of appeal.

Page | 2

##PAGE3##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

6. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 of the Revenue are with respect to allowing benefit u/s 79 of set off of brought forward business

losses of INR 4,02,40,643/-.

7. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on records. Ld.CIT(A) while allowing the claim

of the assessee, has made the following observations:-

Page | 3

##PAGE4##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

Page | 4

##PAGE5##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

Page | 5

##PAGE6##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

Page | 6

##PAGE7##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

Page | 7

##PAGE8##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

Page | 8

##PAGE9##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

Page | 9

##PAGE10##

ITA No.441/Del/2024

8. From the perusal of the observations of Ld.CIT(A), it is observed that Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the set off of brought forwards business losses as post amalgamation, shareholding of the assessee company, was not changed more particularly, 51% of the voting rights were held by the persons who were be the beneficial shareholders of the company of more than 51% on the last day of the year where losses were occurred. These finding given by Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted by the revenue before us. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the order of Ld.CIT(A) which is hereby upheld. Accordingly, Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are

dismissed.

9. Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the revenue is with respect to action of ld. CIT(A) in allowing the depreciation of INR 22,33,986/- on the block of building claimed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top