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

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 272 / 2023HC Delhi12 May 20233 pages
For Petitioner: SANJAY KUMAR
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue was covered by previous decisions, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition. Consequently, the court found no substantial question of law arising.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted a disallowance made under Section 14A. The disallowance was for Rs. 3,24,69,741 and was made despite the assessee not earning any exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A when no exempt income was earned by the assessee.

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(3)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.

ITA 272/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 12.05.2023

+ ITA 272/2023 & CM Nos.24777-78/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2

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

versus

M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Mr Salil Kapoor and Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral): CM No.24778/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 60 days. 2. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:26.06.2023 15:40:53 Signature Not Verified

ITA 272/2023 Page 2 of 3

3.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. CM No.24777/2023 5. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 272/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 7. The appellant seeks to assail the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration is: whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs.3,24,69,741/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] given the fact that the respondent/assessee had not earned any exempt income. 9. This issue stands covered by the following decisions: (i) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT(2015) 378 ITR 33 (ii) CIT v. M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) (iii) Judgment dated 03.05.2023 passed in ITA 250/2023 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 4 Delhi v. M/s Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd. 10. Insofar as Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). 11. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:26.06.2023 15:40:53 Signature Not Verified

ITA 272/2023 Page 3 of 3

12.

The appeal is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 12, 2023

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:26.06.2023 15:40:53 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →