PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI vs. ORIENTAL TOLLWAYS PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the Delhi and Madras High Courts, whose SLPs were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that sustained the deletion of an addition made under Section 14A. The ITAT held that no disallowance was warranted as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.444 citing80 Taxmann.com 221 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.421 citing95 Taxmann.com 250 · 2018 · SC
ITA 252/2023 Page 1 of 3
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Date of decision: 03.05.2023
+ ITA 252/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI
..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel.
versus
ORIENTAL TOLLWAYS PVT LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Kushagra Pandit, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM No.22379/2023 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the applicant/appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 55 days in re-filing the appeal. 2. Mr Kushagra Pandit, Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:31.05.2023 11:45:41 Signature Not Verified
ITA 252/2023 Page 2 of 3
Accordingly, the prayer made therein is allowed. 4. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 252/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015. 6. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. The Tribunal has sustained the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short, “the Rules”]. 6.1 To be noted, the amount of deletion which has been sustained is quantified at Rs.3,35,28,383/-. According to the Tribunal, no exempt income has been earned by the respondent/assessee during the period under consideration, and therefore, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was not warranted. 7. There is no dispute, that this issue is covered by a judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court dated 02.09.2015 passed in ITA 749/2014 titled Cheminvest Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI and the judgment passed in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras). 8. To be noted, one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., was part of the bench in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. 9. Counsel for the appellant/revenue does not dispute the fact, that the special leave petition preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:31.05.2023 11:45:41 Signature Not Verified
ITA 252/2023 Page 3 of 3
the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018, which is reported as [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). 9.1 The order of the Supreme Court reads as follows:
“1. The Special Leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.”
In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 11. It is, however, brought to our notice by the counsel for the appellant/revenue that against other judgments, special leave petitions have been filed which are pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. This fact is placed on record. 12. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
MAY 3, 2023/ tr Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:31.05.2023 11:45:41 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026