COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S CHEMINVEST LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/264/2005HC DelhiDLHC01059235200519 July 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi answered the framed question of law in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This decision was based on a previous order passed by the same Court in ITA No. 595/2004 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Mohair Investment & Trad.C), which dealt with an identical question. The ratio decidendi is that in cases with identical questions of law and facts, the precedent set by a prior judgment of the High Court should be followed. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) appealed against an order dated 30th July, 2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 3818/Del./03 for Assessment Year 1996-1997. The appeal was admitted by the High Court of Delhi on 5th September, 2005, and a specific question of law was framed. The High Court was shown a previous order dated 22nd September, 2016, in a similar case (ITA No. 595/2004, Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Mohair Investment & Trad.C) where an identical question was answered in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not allocating any value to the detachable warrant enclosed to the Non Convertible Debentures which had entitled the assessee to have a right to subscribe to a share of the company at a discounted rate? The Revenue's contention, as implied by the framed question, is that the detachable warrants should have been valued and their value considered. The Assessee's contention, as indicated by the High Court's decision, is that no value should be allocated to these warrants. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments for either side but refers to a previous identical case where the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-50 + ITA 264/2005

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Akriti Dewan, Advocate for Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

M/S. CHEMINVEST LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Ms Kavita Jha, Mr B. Dhoopar and Ms Roopali Gupta, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

19.07.2017

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30th July, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 3818/Del./03 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 1996 – 1997.

2.

While admitting this appeal on 5th September, 2005, the following question of law was framed by this Court: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not allocating any value to the detachable warrant enclosed to the Non Convertible Debentures which had entitled the assessee to have a right to subscribe to a share of the company at a discounted rate?"

3.

The Court has been shown a copy of the order dated 22nd September, 2016 passed in ITA No. 595/2004 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Mohair ITA 264/2005

Page 1 of 2

Investment & Trad.C) in which an identical question was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

4.

Accordingly, the question framed is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

5.The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 19, 2017 rd

ITA 264/2005

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →