THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MAHIMA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/387/2018HC DelhiDLHC01094434201806 April 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. Regarding the first issue, the Court noted that the additions were cancelled by both the CIT(A) and the ITAT, indicating that the appeal involved questions of fact which had been considered and rendered concurrently against the Revenue. Consequently, no question of law was deemed to arise. Concerning the second issue, the Court was not persuaded by the Revenue's argument that the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) was not claimed by the assessee. The Court observed that the Revenue had granted relief in respect of the whole amounts in line with previous assessments, implying that the Revenue's complaint was unfounded. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6 (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal challenges two specific additions made by the Revenue: ₹75 lakhs on account of the value of furniture treated as part of the capital value of land and building sold by the assessee, Mahima Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., and ₹21,81,600/- sought to be amortized by the assessee on account of restaurant development expenses. Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT had cancelled these additions. The Revenue's contention regarding the second aspect was that the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) was not claimed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the addition of ₹75 lakhs on account of the value of furniture treated as part of the capital value of land and building sold by the assessee, when both the CIT(A) and the ITAT cancelled this addition. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's decision involved questions of fact decided concurrently against it. 2. Whether a substantial question of law arises concerning the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) on account of restaurant development expenses, which the Revenue contended was not claimed by the assessee. The Revenue's argument was that the partial relief was not claimed by the assessee. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 387/2018, C.M. APPL.12950/.2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6..... Appellant Through : Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

MAHIMA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through : None.

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

O R D E R %

06.04.2018

The Revenue’s appeal urges two grounds of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, i.e. addition of `75 lakhs on account of the value of furniture which is treated as part of the capital value of the land and building sold by the assessee and consequently the amount of `21,81,600/- sought to be amortized by the assessee on account of the restaurant development expenses. This Court notes that the additions were directed to be cancelled by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. As such, the appeal involves questions of fact which have been considered and rendered concurrently against the Revenue. Consequently, as far as the second aspect with regard to the partial relief granted by CIT(A) is concerned, the Revenue’s complaint is that this partial relief was not claimed by the assessee. This Court is not persuaded by the Revenue’s argument since the Revenue had granted relief in respect of the whole amounts in line with the previous assessments. As such, no question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J APRIL 06, 2018/AJK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →