ACIT CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI vs. FRIGOGLASS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5884/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2023AY 2015-162 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee in prior years, and the department's SLP on the matter was dismissed by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,72,85,014/- made by the Assessing Officer concerning disallowed royalty expenses. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, following previous tribunal orders and a dismissed SLP by the department.

What were the issues?

Whether royalty expenses disallowed by the AO were correctly deleted by the CIT(A) based on previous judicial precedents and a dismissed SLP by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 15/02/2023Pronounced: 20/02/2023

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.:

1. 1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the order dated 16.04.2019 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No. 45/18-19 and 46/18-19 arising out of an appeal before it passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ld AO, ACIT, Circle-9(2),New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).

2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,72,85,014/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing royalty expenses.”

3.

Heard and perused the record.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →