PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/544/2018HC DelhiDLHC01109685201807 May 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 held that the issue of whether the ITAT could extend an interim order beyond the prescribed period under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been answered against the revenue authorities in the judgment reported as Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 376 ITR 87. The High Court noted that the ITAT had followed this judgment. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerned the ITAT's power to extend an interim order beyond the period prescribed under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Casio India Company Pvt Ltd, was represented by none. The High Court was to decide if a substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, having regard to the language of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal (ITAT) could have extended the interim order beyond the prescribed period? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the ITAT could not extend the interim order beyond the prescribed period under Section 254 of the Act. The Revenue relied on the judgment reported as Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 376 ITR 87. The assessee did not present any arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 544/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advs.

versus

CASIO INDIA COMPANY 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 %

07.05.2018

The issue sought to be urged by the Revenue i.e. whether having regard to the language of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as „the Act‟), the Tribunal (ITAT) could have extended the interim order beyond the prescribed period is now answered against the authorities in the judgment reported as Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 376 ITR 87. The ITAT followed that judgment.

No substantial question of law therefore arises. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J MAY 07, 2018 kks

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →