PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI vs. WAVE INFRATECH (P) LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/621/2018HC DelhiDLHC01100141201822 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 of Delhi held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court observed that the ITAT had relied on its own previous decision in Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). Since the ITAT's order was based on an established precedent of the High Court, the Court found no merit in entertaining the Revenue's appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals, with no specific relief granted or denied on the merits of the Section 14A disallowance itself, as the appeals were disposed of on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, New Delhi, filed two appeals (ITA 621/2018 and ITA 622/2018) before the High Court of Delhi. These appeals challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core issue in the ITAT's order concerned a disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee in these appeals is Wave Infratech (P) Ltd. The High Court noted that the ITAT had based its decision on a previous ruling by the same court in Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi).

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Revenue's appeals challenging the ITAT's order concerning disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, Wave Infratech (P) Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's appeals were filed under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the ITAT's order. The Revenue's argument, implicitly, is that the ITAT's decision on the Section 14A disallowance was erroneous, warranting an appeal. The judgment does not detail the specific grounds or arguments presented by the Revenue beyond the fact that they challenged the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 268

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~105 & 106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 621/2018 & CM APPL 21435/2018 + ITA 622/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI

..... Appellant Through Mr.Asheesh Jain, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Sharukh Ejaz, Advocate.

versus

WAVE INFRATECH (P) LTD.

..... Respondent Through Ms.Ananya Kapoor and Mr.Salil Kapoor, Advocates.

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

O R D E R %

22.05.2018 The Revenue’s appeals under Section 268 challenge an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the issue of disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court notices that the ITAT had relied upon the decision of this Court in Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). No such question of law arises.

Appeals are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J MAY 22, 2018/ndn

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →