PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 NEW DELHI vs. M/S RSWM LTD

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 424/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 NEW DELHI

..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S RSWM LTD

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R %

03.08.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.39298/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 4 days in filing the appeal] CM No.39299/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. These are applications filed by the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of four (4) days in filing and forty three (43) days in re-filing the appeal. 3. For the reasons given in the applications, the delay in filing and re- filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

ITA 424/2023

page 1 of 3

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:50:05

ITA 424/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year 2012-13. 6. Via this appeal the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 7. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] could exceed the amount earned by the respondent/assessee by way of dividend, which was exempt under the Act. 8. The record shows that the respondent/assessee had received Rs.50,17,110/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer (AO) directed disallowance of Rs.3,85,60,000/-. 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short, CIT(A)] restricted the disallowance to the amount earned by the respondent/assessee by way of exempt income. The Tribunal has sustained this view. 10. Even according to Mr Abhishek Maratha, this issue is covered by the judgment of the coordinate bench rendered in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 694 (Del.). 11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 12. The Registry will dispatch a copy of the order passed today to the respondent/assessee, at the address given in the memo of parties and/or via email as well.