PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX- 6 vs. M/S NAIDA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1095/2018HC DelhiDLHC01173518201828 November 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that both issues raised in the appeal were covered against the Revenue by its previous decisions. For the first issue concerning Section 14A, the Court referred to its decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 6 versus Mcdonalds's India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 725/2018, decided on 22.10.2018. For the second issue regarding the second proviso of Section 40(a)(ia), the Court cited its ruling in Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, identified as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, has filed an appeal against M/s Noida Software Technology Park Limited for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appeal challenges an order passed by an authority below, though the specific authority and the order details are not provided in the judgment. The appeal concerns two main issues: disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Revenue is contesting the decision of the lower authorities on these matters. The procedural history indicates a delay in re-filing the appeal, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions: 1. Whether the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was correctly made by the Revenue. 2. Whether the second proviso of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue contended that the disallowance under Section 14A was justified. Regarding the second issue, the Revenue argued for the applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Assessee, M/s Noida Software Technology Park Limited. The Revenue relied on the fact that the issues were covered against them by previous decisions of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1095/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX- 6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S NOIDA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Appearance not given.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R %

28.11.2018

CM APPL. 40855/2018 Delay in re-filing is condoned as it is not opposed. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is allowed. ITA 1095/2018 This appeal by the Revenue in the case of M/s Noida Software Technology Park Limited relates to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The first issue which relates to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ for short) is covered against the Revenue by several decisions of this court including the latest decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 6 versus Mcdonalds's India Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 725/2018, decided on 22.10.2018.

3.

The second issue raised by the Revenue relates to applicability of the second proviso of Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act to the Assessment Year 2010-11. This issue is also covered against the Revenue vide decision of this court in Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). 4. Accordingly, we hold that the issues raised in the present appeal are covered and hence no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. NOVEMBER 28, 2018 MR

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →