THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. VATIKA LIMITED.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 560 / 2022HC Delhi23 December 20222 pages
For Petitioner: RUCHIR BHATIA
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. It also issued notice to the respondent assessee on the grounds raised by the Revenue, stating that the first issue is also part of another pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order, seeking condonation for a delay of 168 days in re-filing. The appeal raised two issues concerning the disallowance of a portion of expenditure under Section 35D and the allowability of commission and brokerage expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers in disallowing part of the expenditure under Section 35D, and whether the ITAT erred in allowing deduction for commission and brokerage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 560/2022 & CM No.56301/2022

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1

..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr Shlok Chandra, Jr. Standing Counsel with Ms Mansie Jain, Adv.

versus

VATIKA LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

23.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.56301/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 168 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant, there is a delay of 168 days. 2. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 560/2022 4. Mr Shlok Chandra, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, informs us that in the assessee’s appeal, i.e., ITA No.33/2020, the issue which arises for consideration also obtains in the instant appeal. ITA 560/2022

page 1 of 2

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 14:31:15

5.

The following two issues are raised by the appellant/revenue in the instant case: (i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] erred on facts and in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] had travelled beyond the scope of the plenary powers conferred on him in disallowing 1/5th expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]? (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in holding that deduction of Rs.26,62,379/- claimed as commission and brokerage should be allowed to the assessee ? 6. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, Mr Chandra says that it is also the subject matter of ITA No.33/2020 in which notice has been issued. 7. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondent via all modes including e- mail. 8. List the matter on 06.03.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

DECEMBER 23, 2022

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 560/2022

page 2 of 2 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 14:31:15

More judgments on Section 35D

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →