PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/590/2017HC DelhiDLHC01289718201709 August 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi has decided the questions of law framed in the appeals. For ITA 461/2017 and ITA 526/2017, the question of law was answered against the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeals. For ITA 590/2017 and ITA 82/2018, the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals. The reasoning behind these decisions and the specific ratio decidendi are not provided in this excerpt, which directs reference to the judgment in ITA 461/2017 dated August 9, 2018, for detailed reasoning. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the assessee, McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., and the Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-6, concern assessment years not explicitly stated in this excerpt. The appeals challenge orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is represented by senior advocate Mr. Porus Kaka, while the Revenue is represented by Mr. Rahul Chaudhary. The High Court of Delhi reserved judgment on February 7, 2018, and pronounced it on August 9, 2018. The excerpt indicates that the High Court's decision is based on a detailed judgment from a related case, ITA 461/2017, decided on the same date.

What were the issues?

The High Court was required to decide questions of law arising from the ITAT's orders. In ITA 461/2017 and ITA 526/2017, the question of law was framed in a manner that was answered against the assessee. Conversely, in ITA 590/2017 and ITA 82/2018, the question of law was framed in a way that was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The specific nature of these questions of law, the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the contentions of both the assessee and the Revenue are not detailed in this excerpt. The judgment refers to a more detailed decision in ITA 461/2017 for further information.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 526/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 07.02.2018 Pronounced on: 09.08.2018 + ITA 526/2017

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divesh Chawla & Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates.

versus

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-6 ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocates.

+ ITA 590/2017

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocates

versus

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT.LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divesh Chawla & Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates.

+ ITA 82/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocates.

versus

ITA 526/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 2

MCKINSEY KNOWELEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT LTD

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divesh Chawla & Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1.

The question of law framed in ITA 461/2017 & ITA 526/2017 is answered against the assessee; its appeals, therefore, have to fail. Likewise, the question of law framed in ITA 590/2017 & ITA 82/2018 is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee; the revenue’s appeals, too, have to fail. All the appeals (ITA 461/2017, ITA 590/2017, ITA 82/2018 & ITA 526/2017) are consequently dismissed, without order on costs. 2. For detailed judgment, the decision dated 09.08.2018 in ITA 461/2017 may be referred to.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

A.K. CHAWLA (JUDGE) AUGUST 9, 2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →