PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI vs. P C JEWELLERS LTD.

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 580/2023 & CM APPL. 53515/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Nikhil Jain, Adv.

versus

P C JEWELLERS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Ms Aabgina Chishti, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

13.10.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. To be noted, the aforementioned order is also common to the respondent’s/assessee’s case concerning AY 2014-15. 4. Mr Puneet Rai on behalf of the appellant/revenue has proposed the following questions of law for consideration by this court: “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ “ Tribunal”] was right in applying the CBDT Notification No.56/2012 dated 31.12.2012 which came in force with effect from 01.01.2013 and deleted the addition made by the AO on account of non- deduction of TDS qua expenditure amounting to Rs.1,82,53,095/-

ITA 580/2023

page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:30

incurred on account of Credit Card and Debit Card Commission? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in accepting the additional ground for claiming expenses through cross objection although the respondent/assessee company had neither claimed the same in Income Tax Return nor raised the issue with the Assessing Officer or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the share issue expenses as revenue expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act ignoring the fact that the said expenses were in the capital expenditure? (E) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the expenditure on IPO while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act? (F) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction concerning Education Cess paid under section 37 of the Act ? (G) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing deduction qua education Cess even while the CBDT had issued a clarification in the 2022 Budget and accordingly proposed an amendment with retrospective effect i.e., AY 2005-06?”

page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:30

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

OCTOBER 13, 2023

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 580/2023

page 3 of 3

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:30