PR. CIT-06 vs. NOESIS INDUSTRIES LTD. (FOREMERLY KNOWN AS MVL INDUSTRIES LTD.)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/305/2016HC DelhiDLHC01118372201610 May 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 no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. This conclusion was reached because the Court had previously negatived a case of the Revenue urging similar grounds in its order dated 16th February 2016 in ITA No. 135 of 2016, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 v. Nilgiri Infrastructure Development Ltd. The ratio decidendi is that if the grounds raised by the Revenue are identical to those already decided against the Revenue by the same Court, then no new substantial question of law arises. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. CIT-06, filed this appeal against the order dated 16th October 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2392/Del/2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal challenges the deletion of a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is Noesis Industries Ltd. (formerly MVL Industries Ltd.). The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the AO making a disallowance, the ITAT deleting it, and the Revenue filing the present appeal before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the grounds urged in this appeal are similar to those raised in a previous case, ITA No. 135 of 2016, which was decided by this Court. The Revenue's argument, as implied by the court's reference, is that the ITAT's deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A was erroneous. The Respondent (assessee) did not explicitly record arguments in this judgment. However, their position is that the ITAT's order deleting the disallowance was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.305/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 11. +

ITA 305/2016

PR. CIT-06

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.

versus

NOESIS INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MVL INDUSTRIES LTD.)

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

10.05.2016 CM No. 17167 of 2016 (exemption) 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

ITA 305 of 2016 2. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 16th October 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2392/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10.

3.

The grounds sought to be urged by the Revenue concern the deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) under Section 14A of the Act.

4.

This Court has negatived a case of the Revenue urging similar grounds in its order dated 16th February 2016 in ITA No.135 of 2016 [Pr.

ITA No.305/2016 Page 2 of 2

Commissioner of Income Tax -6 v. Nilgiri Infrastructure Development Ltd.]. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

5.

The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 10, 2016 mg

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →