THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. INTER GLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTEINT PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/346/2017HC DelhiDLHC01016732201730 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question raised by the Revenue in these appeals had already been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by this Court's prior decision dated 22nd May, 2017, in ITA No. 330/2017, titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd. The reasoning was that the present appeals raised the same question that was decided in the earlier case. Therefore, following the precedent set by its own earlier judgment, the Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 against a common order dated 26th July, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order pertained to Assessment Years (AY) 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The assessee is Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's decision. The High Court had to consider applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals, which were allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question raised by the Revenue in these appeals stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by a decision of this Court dated 22nd May, 2017 in ITA No. 330/2017 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that the question raised in these appeals was against them and in favour of the Assessee. The Assessee's position was not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments, but the Revenue's contention implies the Assessee would benefit from the prior High Court decision. The Revenue relied on the High Court's decision in ITA No. 330/2017.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

<D $-1,2,9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 345/2017 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia & Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates versus INTER GLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Vohra, Advocates WITH + ITA 346/2017 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia &Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates versus INTER GLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Vohra, Advocates WITH . + ITA 355/2017 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia & Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates versus INTER GLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Vohra, Advocates ITA NO.34S/2017&connectedmatters pgg^ j qJ2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER % 30.05.2017 CM No. 16881/2017 in ITA No. 345/2017 & CM No. 16897/2017 in ITA No. 355/2017 1.Allowed, subjectto alljust exceptions. CM No. 16882/2017 in ITA No. 345/2017. CM No. 16883/2017 in ITA No. 346/2017 & CM No. 16898/2017 in ITA No. 355/2017 2. For the reasons stated therein, the applications are allowed. Delay of 38 days in re-filingthe appeals is condoned. ITA Nos. 344/2017. 345/2017 & 355/2017 3. These are three appeals by the Revenue against a common order dated 26'^' July, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 419/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2007-08, 5830/Del/2011 for AY 2008-09, ITA No. 1463/Del/2013 for AY 2009-10 and 6144/Del/2013 for AY 2010-11. 4. The question raised by the Revenue in these appeals stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by a decision of this Court dated 22"'' May, 2017 in ITA No. 330/2017 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd. 5. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J iNl5ERi CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 30, 2017/tp ITA No.345/2017 & connectedmatters Page2 of2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →