PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MERCANTILE CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/264/2017HC DelhiDLHC01083167201716 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. The Court noted that the ITAT had relied on its own previous decisions in Maxopp Investment v. CIT and Joint Investment Pvt Ltd. v. CIT. Given these precedents, the Court was not persuaded that the appeal presented a matter requiring further adjudication on a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground of not raising a substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, has filed an appeal against an order dated September 29, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1144/Del/2014. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-2011. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as clarified by CBDT Circular No.5/14 dated February 10, 2014. The ITAT, in its impugned order, had relied on previous decisions of the Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment v. CIT and Joint Investment Pvt Ltd. v. CIT. The Revenue is seeking to challenge the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises concerning the interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as clarified by CBDT Circular No.5/14 dated February 10, 2014. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, Mercantile Capital & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order concerning the interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and the relevant CBDT circular. The Revenue sought to urge this question before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.264 of 2017

Page 1 of 2

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 264/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

MERCANTILE CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: None

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

16.05.2017 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 29th September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1144/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 2010-2011.

2.

The question sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No.5/14 dated 10th February, 2014.

3.

The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, relied on the decisions of this Court in Maxopp Investment v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Del) and Joint Investment Pvt Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694(Del).

ITA No.264 of 2017

Page 2 of 2

4.

In that view of the matter, the Court is not persuaded that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 16, 2017 tp

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →