PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 NEW DELHI vs. PEPSI FOODS PVT LTD.(NOW KNOWN AS PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT.LTD.)

PDF · subscribers

ITA/714/2016HC DelhiDLHC01264713201621 October 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises from the ITAT's decision to extend interim orders. The Court referred to its own previous decision in W.P.(C) No. 1334/2015, Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr and other connected cases, decided on 19.05.2015. In that judgment, it was held that the ITAT possesses the power to extend interim orders of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases. Therefore, based on this precedent, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as they did not raise a substantial question of law. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, New Delhi, against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent in these appeals is Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.). The appeals challenge the ITAT's power to extend interim orders beyond the statutorily permissible limit. The specific assessment years are not mentioned in the provided text. The procedural history involves the ITAT passing interim orders, which the Revenue sought to challenge on the grounds of exceeding statutory limits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the circumstances, the ITAT could have extended the interim order beyond the statutorily permissible limit? (Question of law, concerning the interpretation of statutory provisions related to interim orders). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd.) regarding this issue. However, the fact that the ITAT passed such orders implies a stance that it had the power to do so. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT could not extend the interim order beyond the statutorily permissible limit. The appeals were filed to challenge the ITAT's authority in this regard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~28 to 30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 714/2016 & C.M.38909/2016 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 NEW DELHI

..... Appellant

versus PEPSI FOODS PVT LTD.(NOW KNOWN AS PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT.LTD.)

..... Respondent

+ ITA 715/2016 & C.M.38910/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -1 NEW DELHI ..... Appellant

versus

PEPSI FOODS PVT LTD

..... Respondent

+ ITA 716/2016 & C.M.38911/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -1 NEW DELHI

..... Appellant

versus

PEPSI FOODS PVT.LTD.

..... Respondent

Present: Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand and Mr. Rohan Khare, Advocates for the respondents.

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

O R D E R %

21.10.2016

The question of law urged is “Whether in the circumstances, the ITAT could have extended the interim order beyond the statutorily permissible limit?”

This court notices that the provision has been interpreted in W.P.(C) No. 1334/2015 Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr and other connected cases, decided on 19.05.2015. It was held that the ITAT would have the power to extend the interim order of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases. Accordingly, no question of law arises.

The appeals along with pending applications are accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 21, 2016 rb

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →