PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 vs. M/S DUXTON HILLS BUILDERS PVT LTD

ITA - 495 / 2024HC Delhi13 September 20242 pages

For Petitioner: DEBESH PANDA

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the appellant's contention regarding the characterization of the loss. The respondent asserted that the capital nature of the loss was not disputed before the lower authorities. The appeal was adjourned for further submissions.

What were the facts?

The appellant (Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) argued that the ITAT erred in not characterizing the loss as capital or revenue, even if the transaction wasn't sham. The respondent (assessee) claimed the loss was capital in nature, a claim not disputed by lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in failing to characterize the loss as capital or revenue in nature. Whether the characterization of the loss as capital was disputed before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 495/2024 & CM APPL. 53892/2024 (109 Days Delay)

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC along with Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs and Mr. Ojaswa Pathak, Adv.

versus

M/S DUXTON HILLS BUILDERS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Somil Agarwal and Mr. Dushyant Agrawal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

13.09.2024 O R D E R

CM APPL. 53891/2024 (Ex.)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

ITA 495/2024 & CM APPL. 53892/2024 (109 Days Delay) 1. Having heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Agarwal, who appears for the respondent assessee on advance notice, we take note of the submission of the appellant that even if the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’] with respect to the transaction and securities not being sham were to be accepted, it clearly erred in failing to undertake a further characterization of whether the loss would be liable to be treated as 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 13:11:48

capital or revenue in nature. 2. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that neither before the Assessing Officer [‘AO’] nor before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] was the asserted claim of the assessee of the loss being capital in character ever disputed. He, however, prays for time to address further submissions. 3. Consequently, let the appeal be re-notified for 08.11.2024.

YASHWANT VARMA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2024/RW 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 13:11:48

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →