PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-VI , NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Delhi noted that the question urged in the present appeal was stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner (Revenue) to be covered against the Revenue by a previous decision dated 2nd January, 2017, in a batch of appeals including ITA Nos. 46/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III, New Delhi v. Parnod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.). Based on this submission by the Revenue's counsel, the High Court found no reason to proceed further with the appeal. The reasoning is that if the issue is already decided against the Revenue by a coordinate bench, there is no merit in entertaining the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising issues already decided against the Revenue by a higher judicial forum, in similar facts and circumstances, are likely to be dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-VI, New Delhi (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay, for which an application was made to condone the same. The assessee is NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges a decision of the ITAT, though the specific order or action under challenge is not detailed. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the Revenue filing an appeal with a delay, which was condoned.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the question urged in the present appeal stands covered against the Revenue by a previous decision of the High Court. The Revenue, through its counsel, contended that the question raised in the present appeal is covered against them by the decision dated 2nd January, 2017, in the batch matters of ITA Nos. 46/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III, New Delhi v. Parnod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.). The assessee was represented by 'None'.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 J \ .. $-A1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * . . . + ITA 494/2017 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-VI, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Arun Khatri, Advocate. versus NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. e , CORAM: JUSTICES.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRA THIBA M. SINGH ORDER 010 11.07.2017 CM APPL. No. 23939/2017 (delay in filing) fl" 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. This application is~ accordingly, disposed of. ITA 494/2017 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the .Petitioner that th~ question urged in the present case stands covered against the Revenue by the decision dated 2th January, 2017 in the batch matters of ITA Nos. 46/2017 (Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Central)-III, New Delhi v. Parnod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.) 3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J P~k.t-\~~) PRATHIBA M. SINdk, J JULY 11, 2017/j Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
