Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 264/2024
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, SSC with Mr. Akshat Singh, Adv.
versus
M/S. CHOWDRY ASSOCIATES
..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R %
09.05.2024
CM APPL. 27533/2024 (11 Days Delay in filing) CM APPL. 27534/2024 (58 Days Delay in re-filing)
Bearing in mind the disclosures made the delay of 11 days in filing and 58 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Applications stand disposed of. ITA 264/2024
Having heard Mr. Meharchandani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and on going through the judgment dated 14 September 2023 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] we find that the issue of administrative expenses came to be answered in favour of the assessee bearing in mind the undisputed position that the shares or interests were held in its subsidiary. 4. We note that the ITAT in para 8 has held as follows: “8. After thorough examination of the assessment order and order 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 13:12:16
of ld. CIT(A), it can be observed that not a single word is discussed on the basis of the financials or the P & L Account of the assessee company to show how this suo moto disallowance, is not justified. No reason for disagreeing with the suo-motto disallowance is mentioned by the ld. AO. The exempt income is from investments in subsidiary and there is no justification to attribute any direct or indirect expenses by the assessee for maintaining the shares of subsidiary Dabur India Limitetd on a very general presumption. Grounds are sustained. The appeal is allowed and impugned addition is deleted.”
In view of the aforesaid, and bearing in mind the conclusions that stand recorded in para 8 of the judgment of the ITAT, we find that the appeal fails to raise any substantial question of law. It shall, consequently, stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MAY 9, 2024/kk
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 13:12:16