THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. M/S HT MEDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/552/2016HC DelhiDLHC01167491201623 September 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. The Court noted that the ITAT had relied on the Division Bench ruling of the Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162, for its determination. Given this reliance on a binding precedent from the same court, the High Court found no grounds to interfere. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no specific issue left undecided as the appeal itself was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 (Revenue) is appealing an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed a sum of Rs.3,85,36,446/- in relation to exempt income of Rs.2,14,23,570/-, applying the formula prescribed by Rule 8B of the Income Tax Rules. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) and the ITAT subsequently directed the deletion of this disallowance, restricting the addition to Rs.8,39,534/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT's decision was based on a ruling by the Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the cancellation of the disallowance under Section 14A was justified. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s HT Media Ltd. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the cancellation of the disallowance under Section 14A by the CIT and ITAT was not justified. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's reliance on the Delhi High Court's ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, implying that this precedent was either misapplied or that the facts of the present case warrant a different outcome.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 552/2016

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Rao, Jr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S HT MEDIA LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

23.09.2016 O R D E R

The question of law urged in this case is “whether in the circumstances of the case, cancellation of the disallowance under Section 14A was justified”. In the course of proceedings for AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.3,85,36,446/- in respect of exempt income of Rs.2,14,23,570/-. The AO concededly applied the formula prescribed by Rule 8B. The CIT and ITAT directed deletion of this amount and instead restricted the addition to a sum of Rs.8,39,534/- under Section 14A. This Court has noticed that in its determination, the ITAT had relied upon the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 247 CTR 162.

In view of this position, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 /vikas/

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →