Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 173/2023
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel.
versus
QUALITY COUNCIL OF INDIA
..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R %
23.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 13850/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 102 days in filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 102 days. 3. Having regard to the period of delay, we are inclined to condone the same. 4. The delay is accordingly condoned. 5. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 13851/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 109 days in re-filing the appeal] 6. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue. Via ITA 173/2023
page 1 of 2 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 13:33:20
the application, the appellant/revenue seeks condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 7. According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of 109 days. 8. Having regard to the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 9. The application is disposed of. ITA 173/2023 10. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 11. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “the Tribunal”] was: whether the activities carried out by the respondent/assessee and the consideration received thereto are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 12. According to Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, the issue raised in the instant appeal is covered by the decision of a coordinate bench of this court dated 14.12.2016 in ITA 867/2016, titled Commissioner of Income Tax- (E) v. Quality Council of India, concerning AY 2009-10. 12.1 In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MARCH 23, 2023/r Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 173/2023
page 2 of 2 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 13:33:20