COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers

ITA/236/2016HC DelhiDLHC01107759201605 April 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the factual finding of the CIT(A), which was concurred with by the ITAT, was that the Assessee had disclosed the rental income of Rs. 6,72,30,455 in its computation of taxable income for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The Court found no perversity in this factual finding. Consequently, the Court was not persuaded that a substantial question of law arose for determination. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30th September 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order was in ITA No. 2566/Del/2013 for Assessment Year 2000-01. The appeal challenged the ITAT's concurrence with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who had deleted an addition of Rs. 6,72,30,455 made by the Assessing Officer (AO). This addition was on account of 'rental income'. The factual basis for the deletion, concurred by the ITAT, was that the Assessee had already disclosed this rental income in its computation of taxable income, making a separate addition unnecessary.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in concurring with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,72,30,455 made by the AO on account of 'rental income' (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The Assessee had disclosed the rental income in its computation of taxable income, and therefore, no separate addition was warranted. The factual finding of disclosure by the Assessee was accepted by the CIT(A) and concurred with by the ITAT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. The specific arguments of the Revenue are not detailed in the judgment, beyond stating the question of law being urged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 236 of 2016

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 28. +

ITA 236/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate.

versus

SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

05.04.2016

CM No. 12613/2016 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

ITA 236/2016

This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is against an order dated 30th September 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2566/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2000-01.

The question sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal is whether

ITA No. 236 of 2016

Page 2 of 2

the ITAT was justified in concurring with the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’] who deleted the addition of Rs.6,72,30,455 made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) to the disclosed income of the Assessee on account of 'rental income'.

The factual finding referred by the CIT (A), which has been concurred with by the ITAT, is that in its computation of taxable income, the Assessee did disclose the aforementioned rental income and, therefore, a separate addition was not called for.

The Court is not persuaded to hold that the above factual finding suffers from any perversity.

No substantial question of law arises for determination by the Court. The appeal is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 05, 2016 dn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →