PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 170 / 2023HC Delhi22 March 20233 pages
For Petitioner: SANJAY KUMAR
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Revenue's appeals for earlier assessment years on the same issue were dismissed. Given this precedent and similar views from coordinate benches, the court found no substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order sustaining the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A. The disallowance was quantified at Rs. 7,24,23,249/-. The Revenue's appeals for earlier assessment years concerning the same issue were dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal when similar appeals for prior years have been dismissed and no substantial question of law arises.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 170/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2

..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

..... Respondent Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

22.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.13594/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 250 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 250 days. 3. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the non- applicant/revenue, does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. The application is disposed of. ITA 170/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

ITA 170/2023

1/3 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 14:04:07

6.

The Tribunal, via, the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] has sustained the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. The amount which had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was quantified at Rs.7,24,23,249/-. 7. It is not disputed by Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, that in the respondent/assessee’s own case concerning AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, the appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue were dismissed. 7.1 In this context, our attention has been drawn to the order dated 11.08.2015 passed in ITA nos.535/2015 & 536/2015. 7.2 Furthermore, several coordinate benches have taken the same view. The details of these orders are set forth hereafter: (i) Judgment dated 05.12.2022 rendered in ITA No.505/2022, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi – 4 vs. M/s MMTC Ltd. (ii) Judgment dated 20.07.2022 rendered in ITA No.204/2022, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (iii) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. (2022) 144 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi) (iv) Judgment dated 11.08.2015 rendered in ITA Nos.535/2022 & 536/2015, titled Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

ITA 170/2023

2/3 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 14:04:07

8.

Having regard to the aforesaid, in our view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

MARCH 22, 2023/pmc

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 170/2023

3/3 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 14:04:07

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →