THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/216/2018HC DelhiDLHC01520391201720 February 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised by the Revenue is covered against them by the judgment of the same Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 376 ITR 87. Consequently, no question of law arises for consideration. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that extended a stay. The assessee is M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. The appeals under challenge are ITA Nos. 214/2018, 215/2018, and 216/2018. The Revenue contends that the ITAT's action of extending the stay is contrary to Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Delhi is hearing these appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT's order extending the stay is contrary to Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (question of law). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contends that the ITAT's order extending the stay is contrary to the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue relies on the judgment of the High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 376 ITR 87.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~35 to 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 214/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant

versus

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

..... Respondent

+ ITA 215/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant

versus

M/S HCL TECHONOLOGIES LTD. ..... Respondent

+ ITA 216/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant

versus

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

..... Respondent

Present: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Ms. Devika Jain, Adv. for respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

20.02.2018

The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT extending the stay, and it contends that this is contrary to the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue is covered against the Revenue in this respect by the ITA 214/2018 & connected matters

Page 1 of 2

judgment of this Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 376 ITR 87.

No question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2018 kks

ITA 214/2018 & connected matters

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →