THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 vs. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1313/2018HC DelhiDLHC01100460201826 November 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi took the statement of the appellant-Revenue on record regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lacs. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present appeal without answering the substantial question of law, leaving it open. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant-Revenue to file an application for revival if the case is covered under an exception. No specific finding was made on the merits of the substantial question of law as it was not addressed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order passed by an ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal). The respondent is Jindal Photo Ltd. The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The revenue's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lacs. Consequently, the revenue argued that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal need not be answered and the appeal may be disposed of leaving the question of law open.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law raised in the appeal needs to be answered, given that the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lacs? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that as the tax effect in the appeal is below Rs. 50 lacs, the substantial question of law need not be answered and the appeal can be disposed of leaving the question of law open. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side on this point, other than their presence through counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1313/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

JINDAL PHOTO LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate.

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

O R D E R %

26.11.2018

Counsel for the appellant-Revenue submits that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs.50 lacs and hence, the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal need not be answered. The appeal may be disposed of leaving the question of law open.

Taking the statement on record, we dispose of the present appeal without answering the substantial question of law, which is left open. We also give liberty to the appellant-Revenue to file an application for revival if the case is covered under an exception.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2018 MR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →