Commissioner Of Incometax Bhopal vs. M/S Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited

PDF · subscribers
ITA/118/2016HC Madhya Pradesh16 November 2016Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay LalFor Respondent: Advocate General
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The reasoning for dismissal was based on the principle laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Delhi Transco Limited, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Similar judgments from the Karnataka High Court in CIT, Bangalore Vs. Hubli Electric Supply Company Limited and the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited were also considered. The Tribunal found no case for interference as the question of law raised by the Revenue had already been decided against the Revenue in these referred judgments, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's SLP in the Delhi Transco Limited case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without interference.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal (the Revenue) against M/s Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (the Assessee). The appeal was filed with a delay, for which an application for condonation was made and allowed. The Revenue sought to challenge an order or action, the specifics of which are not detailed in the provided text. The appeal pertains to an assessment year that is not specified. The procedural history involves the filing of an application for exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned order, which was also allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide a question of law regarding the assessment of the Assessee, which is not explicitly stated but implied by the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue's contention, as inferred from the judgment, is that the question of law raised in their appeal should be decided in their favor. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded. The judgment relies on several High Court decisions and a Supreme Court order, suggesting the issue revolves around a point of law previously decided against the Revenue. The specific provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that the issue turns on is not mentioned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-118-2016 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX BHOPAL Vs M/S MADHYA PRADESH POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED) 16-11-2016 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sapan Usrethe, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A. No.12842/2016, application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order. I.A. No.12842/2016 is allowed. Also heard on I.A. No.15085/2016, an application for condonation of delay. I.A. No.15085/2016 is allowed. The delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. In view of the principle laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Vs. Delhi Transco Limited, (2016) 380 ITR 398; upheld by the Supreme Court in the SLP No.1387/2016 (CIT Vs. Delhi Transco Limited); and, further judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT, Bangalore Vs. Hubli Electric Supply Company Limited, (2016) 237 TAXMAN 7; and, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (2015) 375 ITR 23, we see no case for interference as the question of law raised in this appeal by the revenue has already been decided against the revenue in the judgments referred to hereinabove and the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue in the case of Delhi Transco Limited (supra). In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE ss

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →