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

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 572 / 2024HC Delhi13 December 20243 pages
For Petitioner: VIPUL AGRAWAL
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the issue regarding excise deposits was covered by its earlier decisions, including a Supreme Court rejection of an appeal. Similarly, the issue concerning Section 80IA was also covered by a previous High Court ruling in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2011-12. The appeal raised several questions of law regarding additions made by the AO, including disallowance of excise deposits, prior period expenses, proportionate business expenses, and expenses without documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in deleting additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of excise deposits, prior period expenses, proportionate business expenses, and unsubstantiated expenses. Whether the ITAT's orders were perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 80IA,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 572/2024

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI – 1.....Appellant Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

13.12.2024

CM APPL. 73381/2024 (Condonation of delay)

1.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal allowed. 2. Application is disposed of. CM APPL. 73382 /2024 (Condonation of delay in refiling)

3.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal allowed. 4. Application is disposed of. ITA 572/2024 5. The revenue has filed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) impugning an order dated 14.08.2023 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in ITA 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

No.5509/DEL/2019 and 5920/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2011- 12. 6. 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?”

7.

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

The Appeal preferred against the said decision was rejected by the Supreme Court by an order dated 24.11.2017 rendered in Civil Appeal No.19763/2017 captioned Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. M/s. Modicon Ltd. 8. In view of above, the said question cannot be considered as a substantial question of law. 9. 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

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 13, 2024 kct

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

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

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →