DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TELECOM CONSULT INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 28/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that one of the grounds raised by the Revenue was not part of the original assessment. Regarding the section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had followed judicial consistency in deleting proportionate interest expenditure. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2016-17, which involved proceedings under section 143(3). The appeal raised grounds related to the deletion of disallowance under section 14A and deletion of disallowance for legal and professional charges.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and disallowance of legal and professional charges.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 143(3)

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.02.2026Pronounced: 12.02.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2019- 20/1019615787(1), dated 18.10.2019 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

This Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

“1. The impugned order of the CIT (A) is bad in law as well as on facts of the case.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) has erre

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →