PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 1 vs. M/S DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

2024

The revenue has projected the following questions of law for consideration of this Court:- “A. Whether on facts & circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. ITAT and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of advanced excise deposit u/s 43B on Liquor Trade of ₹.8,81, 97,237/-? B. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the ld. ITAT has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance on account of prior period expenses claimed of ₹.13,05,668/- made by the AO? C. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the ld. ITAT has erred in directing the AO to allow the disallowance of proportionate business expenses to the rental receipts/income at Dilli Haat INA of ₹.1,28,90,063/- made by the AO? D. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the ld. ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹.26,46,058/- made by the AO on account of not furnished /expenses not supported by the documentary evidences? E. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the ld. ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act? F. Whether on facts & circumstances of the case and applicable law, order, impugned orders passed by Hon'ble ITAT are perverse?”

Insofar as the first question [A] is concerned, concededly the same is covered by the earlier decision of this Court including an order dated 09.07.14 passed in ITA No.267/2014: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation. The said order was passed inter-alia, following the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Modicon Ltd.: 334 ITR 106. 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 13:13:25

In view of above, the said question cannot be considered as a substantial question of law.

Insofar as the 5th question [E] is concerned, the same is also covered in favour of the Assessee by earlier decision of this Court in Sh. Bhavani Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3) and Anr.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del. 5626. 10. Issue notice confined to the remaining three questions, returnable on 26.03.2025. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ