PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, NEW DELHI vs. KAMA HOLDINGS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/726/2017HC DelhiDLHC01337985201708 September 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court's decision was based on its prior order dated 16th August 2017, which dismissed a similar appeal (ITA No. 818/2016) filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10. In that prior order, the Court had concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Applying the same reasoning to the present appeal for AY 2008-09, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in this case either. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground without delving into the merits of the ITAT's decision. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 27th March 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2993/Del/2014 concerning Assessment Year 2008-09. The issue raised in this appeal was identical to that in ITA No. 818/2016, filed by the Revenue against an ITAT order dated 11th May 2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The High Court had previously dismissed ITA No. 818/2016 on 16th August 2017, finding no substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Does a substantial question of law arise for consideration in the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order dated 27th March 2017 for AY 2008-09? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The Revenue's contentions are not detailed in the judgment. The Respondent (Kama Holdings Ltd.) was not represented, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf. The judgment does not specify the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the issue turns on, nor does it detail the specific arguments of the Revenue beyond stating that a substantial question of law arises.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 726/2017 Page 1 of 2 $~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 726/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel. versus KAMA HOLDINGS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 08.09.2017 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Revenue against the order dated 27th March 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2993/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09. 2. The question urged by the Revenue in the present appeal also arose in ITA No. 818/2016 filed by the Revenue against the order dated 11th May 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1555/Del/2014 for AY 2009- 10. 3. The said ITA No. 818/2016 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16th August 2017. The Court was of the view that no substantial

ITA 726/2017 Page 2 of 2 question of law arose for consideration. 4. For the reasons as stated in the said order dated 16th August 2017, the present appeal is also dismissed as, in the considered view of the Court, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal as well. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 dk

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →