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

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 263 / 2023HC Delhi08 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 arose for consideration in the appeal. The issue concerned the disallowance under Section 14A when no exempt income was availed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning AY 2015-16. The appeal was delayed by 60 days, which the High Court condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible when the assessee has 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 263/2023

Page 1 of 3

$~102 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 08.05.2023

+ ITA 263/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2

..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate.

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. 23111/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM APPL. 23112/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal] 2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 60 days. 3. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.06.2023 18:19:43 Signature Not Verified

ITA 263/2023

Page 2 of 3

4.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 5. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 263/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration, according to Mr Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, is whether disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”], read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short, Rules] can be deleted, in a situation when the assessee had not availed of any exempt income? 9. This issue stands covered by the following decisions: (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. 10. Insofar as Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC).

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.06.2023 18:19:43 Signature Not Verified

ITA 263/2023

Page 3 of 3

11.

According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 12. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 8, 2023 / tr

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.06.2023 18:19:43 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 →