PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 266 / 2023HC Delhi09 May 20233 pages
For Petitioner: SANJAY KUMAR
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal was decided based on existing judgments where similar issues were addressed.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted a disallowance of Rs. 5,75,90,145 under Section 14A. The disallowance was made despite the assessee not earning any exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A when the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

ITA No.266/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: 09.05.2023

+ ITA 266/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2

..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Hemlata Rawat and Ms Easha Kadian, Advs.

versus

M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor with Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral): CM Appl.23547/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM Appl.23548/2023 2. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, the period of delay involved is 60 days.

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.06.2023 16:23:16 Signature Not Verified

ITA No.266/2023 Page 2 of 3

3.

Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. The delay is, accordingly, condoned. 5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 266/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs.5,75,90,145/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] given the fact that the respondent/assessee has not earned any exempt income. 8.1 Mr Kumar cannot but accept, that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered inter alia by the following judgments: (i) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (ii) CIT v. M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) (iii) Judgment dated 03.05.2023 passed in ITA 250/2023 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 4 Delhi v. M/s Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd. 9. Insofar as the Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.06.2023 16:23:16 Signature Not Verified

ITA No.266/2023 Page 3 of 3

10.

According to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 9, 2023/pmc

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.06.2023 16:23:16 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →