PR. CIT -1 vs. AVERY DENNISON (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/516/2017HC DelhiDLHC01052109201718 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 for consideration in the present appeal. This conclusion was reached because the ITAT's impugned order for AY 2010-2011 had followed the Tribunal's own earlier order for AY 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The Revenue had previously appealed against that earlier order, and this Court had dismissed that appeal. Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was accordingly dismissed. No specific issues were decided on merits; the dismissal was procedural based on the prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against an order dated September 9, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1670/Del./2015 for Assessment Year 2010-2011. The ITAT's impugned order followed its own earlier decision concerning the assessee, Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., for Assessment Years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The Revenue had also appealed against that earlier order, but this Court dismissed that appeal on July 15, 2016, in ITA No. 386/2016. The present appeal by the Revenue challenges the ITAT's order for AY 2010-2011.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order for AY 2010-2011, given that the Court had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order for AY 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, which the impugned order followed. This is a question of law. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not make any specific arguments recorded in this order. The High Court's decision was based on its previous ruling. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued for the admission of the appeal. However, the Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 48 + ITA 516/2017 PR. CIT -1

..... Appellant Through: Mr Himanshu Sinha and Mr Manan Jain, Advocates

versus

AVERY DENNISON (INDIA) PVT. LTD

..... Respondent Through: Mr Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

18.07.2017

1.

This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 9th September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1670/Del./2015 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2010 – 2011.

2.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has by the impugned order followed an earlier order of the ITAT itself in the Assessee’s own case for AY 2007- 2008 and 2008- 2009. The appeal against the said order by the Revenue was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 15th July, 2016 in ITA No.386/2016.

ITA 516/2017

Page 1 of 2

3.

Accordingly, the Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

4.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 18, 2017 rd

ITA 516/2017

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →