PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-8, vs. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/502/2017HC DelhiDLHC01174357201728 July 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court noted that the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal had already been decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue in previous judgments by the same Court. These prior decisions were dated October 31st, 2016 (in ITA No. 642/2016), April 18th, 2017 (in ITA No. 305/2017), and May 15th, 2017 (in ITA No. 374 of 2017). Consequently, based on these prior pronouncements, the High Court found no independent substantial question of law to adjudicate and dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-8 (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order dated September 30th passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1835/Del./2011 concerning Assessment Year 2003-2004. The appeal was filed with a delay of 31 days in filing and 21 days in re-filing, which the High Court condoned. The Revenue's appeal challenged the ITAT's decision in favour of Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (the Assessee). The High Court noted that the issues raised by the Revenue in this appeal had already been decided by the same court in previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order dated September 30th in ITA No. 1835/Del./2011 for AY 2003-2004, which is under challenge by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that substantial questions of law arise from the ITAT's order. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue regarding the substantive issues decided by the ITAT. The Assessee's contentions are also not recorded in detail. The High Court's primary focus was on whether the appeal itself presented a substantial question of law, given its previous rulings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4 + ITA 502/2017

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-8.... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.

..... Respondent Through:Mr Himanshu S. Sinha and Mr Manav Jain, Advocates

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

28.07.2017

CM 24202/2017 (exemption)

1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CMs 24203-24204/2017 (delay in filing & re-filing)

2.

The delay of 31 days in filing and 21 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The applications are disposed of.

ITA 502/2017

3.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30th September passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA

No. 1835/Del./2011 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2003-2004.

4.

The issues raised by the Revenue in this appeal already answered by this Court in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by this Court’s order dated 31st October, 2016 in ITA No.642/2016, the order dated 18th April, 2017 passed in ITA No.305/2017 and the order dated 15th May 2017 in ITA No. 374 of 2017.

5.

No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 28, 2017 rd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →