CIT vs. ENGINEERS INDIA LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue of the applicability of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act did not arise for consideration in ITA 300/2012, as it pertained to Assessment Year 2007-08, and this issue was relevant for ITA 297/2010 (Assessment Year 2006-07). Consequently, ITA 300/2012 was allowed. Regarding the main issue of calculating disallowance under Section 14A, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose, relying on the precedent set in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Delhi). The appeal ITA 297/2012 was listed for hearing on a future date.
What were the facts?
The appeals before the Delhi High Court concerned Engineers India Ltd. (assessee) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (revenue). ITA 300/2012 pertained to Assessment Year 2007-08, and ITA 297/2012 to Assessment Year 2006-07. The High Court had previously confined notice in ITA 300/2012 to the applicability of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. However, the appellant (revenue) submitted that this issue was not relevant for the year 2007-08, but rather for ITA 297/2010 (Assessment Year 2006-07). The Court noted that on the main issue of calculating disallowance under Section 14A, no substantial question of law arose, citing the ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the applicability of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act arises for consideration in ITA 300/2012 (Assessment Year 2007-08)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issue of Section 244A applicability does not arise for consideration in ITA 300/2012 as it pertains to Assessment Year 2007-08, and this issue is relevant for ITA 297/2010 (Assessment Year 2006-07). Revenue's Contention: The revenue had initially sought notice on the applicability of Section 244A in ITA 300/2012. However, their counsel later clarified that this issue pertains to a different assessment year (2006-07) and not the current appeal (2007-08). 2. Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded. The judgment notes that no substantial question of law arises on this issue, referencing the ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cited by 13 judgments on BharatTax
See all citing judgments →Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.
- Dy CIT 11 (3)(1), Mumbai v. Total Oil India Pvt Ltd., MumbaiMumbai · 2023-12-29
- DCIT- 11 (3)(1), Mumbai v. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., MumbaiMumbai · 2020-01-10
- Total Oil India P. Ltd, Mumbai v. ACIT Cir 11(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai · 2020-01-10
- ACIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai v. Total Oil India P. Ltd, MumbaiMumbai · 2020-01-10
- Asst CIT Range 11(3)(1), Mumbai v. Total Oil India P.Ltd, MumbaiMumbai · 2020-01-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 297/2012 . . . ITA 300/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through : Sh. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. . versus . . . ENGINEERS INDIA LTD ..... Respondent . Through : Sh. Sparsh Bhargava, for Sh. Tarun Gulati, Advocate. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 17.08.2012 . . . ITA 300/2012 . It is brought to the notice of this Court that the order of 15.05.2012 had confined notice in the appeal (ITA No. 300/2012) to the question of applicability of Section 244 A of the Income Tax Act. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this issue does not arise for consideration in the present appeal since it pertains to the year 2007-08; that issue arises in ITA 297/2010 (Assessment Year 2006-07). . In view of the previous order which had noticed that on the main question, i.e. the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A, which is covered by the ruling in ??Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Delhi), no substantial question of law arises in this case. ITA 300/2012 is accordingly allowed. . ITA 297/2012 . List for hearing on 21.09.2012. . . . S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . AUGUST 17, 2012 . ?ajk? . . . $ 6 and 7 .
More judgments on Section 244A
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), RajkotITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), RajkotITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6805/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Pratibha Sanjai Srivastava, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2565/AHD/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026