M/S JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2085/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2026AY 2006-078 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal deleted the disallowance of professional charges paid to a US-based entity, citing the "make available" clause in the DTAA. It also deleted disallowances related to prior period expenses, allowing them as deductible. Other grounds were rejected due to lack of evidence or being decided in preceding years.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Jet Lite (India) Limited, appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders upholding various additions and disallowances. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.

What were the issues?

The key issues involved the allowability of various expenses, including landing charges, commission, professional charges, and prior period expenses, and the applicability of TDS provisions and DTAA clauses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194-I,Section 194 J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 05.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 Assessment Years: 2006-07 Vs. Deputy M/s Jet Lite (India) Limited Commissioner of Jetair House, 13, Income Tax Community Centre, Yusuf Central Circle-6 Sarai, New Delhi- 49 New Delhi PAN: AADCS4480L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing 16.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 2085/Del/2011, for assessment years 2006-07, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I) [in short, “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders dated 14.03.2011, passed in Order No. 192/09-10, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We thus proceed ex-parte on account of its continuous non- appearance before the tribunal.

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 (Assessee’s appeal); A.Y: 2006- 07 This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: “Ground No. 1: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT(A)'), has erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in upholding the various additions / disallowances made in the Assessment Oder dated 22.07.2009. Ground No. 2: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of Landing Charges amounting to Rs. 19,28,85,352/-.

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 19,28,85,352/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground No. 3: The Ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Commission paid / payable to Agents of Rs. 9,44,26,999. Hence the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 9.44.26.999/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 4: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of Professional charges paid to M/s Seabury Airline Planning Group of Rs. 52,57,670/-.

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 52,57,670/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground No. 5: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case 2 | P a g e

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 in confirming the disallowance of Miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 12,12,217/-.

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 12,12,217/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 6: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of Provision made for Corporate Incentives amounting to Rs. 4,12,52,010/-

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 4,12,52,010/- upheld by the CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 7: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of Expenses booked on Provisional Basis amounting to Rs. 2,97,45,994/-.

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 2,97,45,994/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 8: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of Prior Period expenses of Rs. 2.25,41,790/-.

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 2,25,41,790/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 9: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of Bank Guarantee Commission of Rs. 60,78,103/-.

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 60,78,103/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 Ground No. 10: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,88,50,295/- on account of wrong reversals of income.

Hence, the appellant prays that this addition of Rs. 1,88,50,295/- upheld by CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 11: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of alleged Unsupported Expenses of Rs. 2,37,45,246/-

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 2,37,45,246/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 12: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,03,58,480/- on account from Helicopters.

Hence, the appellant prays that this addition of Rs. 1,03,58,480/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 13: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance of Printing & Stationery Expenses of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-

Hence, the appellant prays that this disallowance of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Ground No. 14: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,95,31,234/- on account of accrued interest Income on Fixed Deposits.

4 | P a g e

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 Hence, the appellant prays that this addition amounting to Rs. 2,95,31,234/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground No. 15: The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or omit any of the above grounds of appeal as the circumstances may warrant on or before the date of hearing.

We now proceed ground wise to dispose of the instant appeal.

4.

The assessee’s first and foremost grievance pleaded herein is that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing its Landing Charges amounting to Rs. 19,28,85,352/- for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194-I of the Act as against its case that it was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194 J only. Suffice to say, hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision followed in the CIT(A) order i.e. United Airlines vs CIT 287 ITR 281 (Del.) has settled the very issue in the department’s favour. Rejected accordingly.

5.

Next comes the second substantive issue between the parties regarding disallowance of the assessee’s commission paid/payable to various agents amounting to Rs. 9,44,26,999/- in both the lower proceedings. Learned CIT(DR) takes us to para 8 at page nos. 18 onwards of the CIT(A) detailed discussion quoting the assessee’s 5 | P a g e

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 failure in pleading, proving as well as re-conciliating all relevant details thereof. Rejected accordingly.

6.

The assessee’s third substantive ground raised herein seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing its professional charges payments to M/s Seabury Airline Planning Group amounting to Rs. 52,57,670/- for non-deduction of TDS thereupon. This payee admittedly happens to be a US based entity; and, going by Article 12(4)(b) of the Indo-US double taxation avoidance agreement “DTAA”, there is no indication as to whether the payments in question satisfy the “make available” clause so as to hold it assessable under the provisions of the Act. We accordingly delete the impugned disallowance in very terms.

7.

The assessee’s fourth substantive ground seeking to allow miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 12,12,217/- is hereby rejected on account of its failure all along to file and prove all the necessary supportive evidence(s) in both the lower proceedings.

8.

The assessee’s fifth substantive ground pleads that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing its provisions made in the corporate in entries 6 | P a g e

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 amounting to Rs. 4,12,52,010/-. Learned CIT(DR) takes us to page no. 139 in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion making it very clear that the assessee failed to prove the very basis of the impugned provision so as to get the same treated as an ascertained liability than a contingent one. Rejected accordingly.

9.

The assessee’s sixth substantive ground seeks to claim professional expenses amounting to Rs. ,97,45,994/- which has been disallowed in page nos. 145 & 146 of the Act on the ground that they are prior period expenses. The very factual position is therein the assessee’s seventh substantive ground under the very head involving the sum of Rs. 2,25,41,790/- as well. A perusal of the case records indicates that the assessee appears to have treated the same as allowable in the relevant previous year after due crystallization thereof. The fact also remains that it as all along been assessed at the maximum margin as well. Faced with this situation, we quote DCIT vs. M/s Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 17 (Del.) to conclude that such claim(s) could not have been disallowed as mere prior period expenditure only. We thus delete both these disallowances in very terms.

7 | P a g e

ITA No. 2085/Del/2011 10. The assessee’s eighth, eleventh, twelfth and fourteenth substantive grounds raising as many issues of unsupported expenses , bank guarantee commission, under recovery of income from helicopters and accrued income of fixed deposits are rejected since the same already stands decided in the department’s favour in the preceding assessment year(s) as discussed in lower appellate discussion.

11.

Lastly comes the assessee’s thirteenth substantive ground regarding printing and stationery expenses disallowance of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- which has already been restricted to that @ 5% only in ITA No. 2084/Del/2011 for assessment year 2005-06. Partly accepted in very terms.

12.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:05.06.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

8 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 194-I

All 307 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →