PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/271/2017HC DelhiDLHC01052103201709 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The Court noted that the ITAT's determination was purely on facts, specifically highlighting that the Assessing Officer had not examined whether the deduction claimed by the assessee was bona fide. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, meaning the ITAT's order deleting the disallowance stood. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi, appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated September 2, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1238/Del/2014. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2008-2009. The dispute concerned the deletion of a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer had not examined the bona fides of the deduction claimed by the assessee, National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. The High Court observed that the ITAT's determination was purely on facts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for the Assessment Year 2008-2009? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 14A and Rule 8D). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's finding, as noted by the High Court, was that the Assessing Officer did not examine the bona fides of the deduction claimed by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Revenue's appeal was filed on the premise that a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 271/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate

versus NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Ms. Monika Ghai & Ms. Shyamalima Borah, Advocates

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

09.05.2017 1. The question urged by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the order dated 2nd September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1238/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ITAT has noted that the Assessing Officer did not actually examine whether the deduction claimed by the Assessee was bonafide. The determination by the ITAT has turned purely on facts. No substantial question of law arises.

2.

The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 09, 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 →