PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - 2 vs. M/S. CAPARO INDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/357/2018HC DelhiDLHC01032386201823 March 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law presented in this appeal is squarely covered by its prior decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. (377 ITR 635 (Del.)). In that judgment, the Court had ruled that the amendment introducing the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was curative in nature. Consequently, the disallowance that had been made by the Assessing Officer and subsequently set aside by the ITAT was deemed justified. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The appellant is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 (Revenue), and the respondent is M/s. Caparo India Ltd. (Assessee). The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The dispute revolves around the applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, which was set aside by the ITAT, is justified in light of the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the disallowance made by the AO was justified. The Assessee's position, as reflected in the ITAT's decision, was that the disallowance was not justified. The judgment states that the question of law is covered by a previous High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del.), which held the amendment to be curative. The judgment does not record specific arguments from either side beyond this reference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 357/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - 2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

M/S. CAPARO INDIA LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Pranjal Srivastava & Ms. Devina Sharma, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

23.03.2018

The question of law urged in this case is completely covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del.). The Court had held that the amendment by way of introduction of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was essentially curative. In these circumstances, the disallowance made by the AO but set aside by the ITAT, is justified. No question of law arises; the appeal is dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J MARCH 23, 2018 kks

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →