CIT vs. JAY PEE VENTURES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/478/2012HC DelhiDLHC01085673201229 August 2012Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. The Court noted that the ITAT had directed the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce v. DCIT (328 ITR 81) and a similar reasoning adopted in Indaxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 162. In view of these circumstances, the High Court found no substantial question of law to be decided. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in two appeals, ITA 476/2012 and ITA 478/2012. The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) against M/s Jay Pee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The core issue in both appeals pertains to the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had directed the deletion of this disallowance. The High Court of Delhi noted that the ITAT's decision was based on the reasoning adopted in the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce v. DCIT and a similar reasoning in Indaxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT. The respondent assessee was represented by 'Nemo' (not present).

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's direction to delete the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's order, which is under challenge, directed the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, as the appellant, is aggrieved by the ITAT's order. The substantial question of law sought to be urged by the Revenue is in respect of the deletion of the disallowance made under Section 14A. The Revenue relies on the fact that the ITAT followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce v. DCIT and the Delhi High Court's decision in Indaxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, implying that these decisions form the basis of the ITAT's order which the Revenue disputes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

•4 I $~1 &3 - IN THE niGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -I ITA 476/2012 COMMISSIONl^Jl OF INCOME l AX-II Appellant Through : Sh. Kamal Sawhncy, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S JAY PEE VENTUR]£S PVT. LTD. Respondent Through : Nemo. ITA 478/2012 CIT Appellant Through ; Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus JAY PliE VENTURliS PVT LTD Respondent Tlirough : Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. IMVINDliA BIIAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 29.08.2012 '!'hc Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal in these cases, rhe substantial questions of law sought to be urged is in respect of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, which was directed to be deleted by the I'ribunal. following the decision of the Bombay High Court in GodreJ & Boyce v. DCIT 328 TfR 8! (Bom). This Court notices that a similar reasoning has been adopted in the judgment reported as hdaxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 247 C'l'R 162. ha view of these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. I'hc appeals are accordingly dismissed, following the reasoning in Maxopp (supra). S. RAVINDRA BIIAT, J R.V.EASWAR, J AUGUST 29,2012 'ajk' Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →