THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GE INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1215/2018HC DelhiDLHC01376315201810 October 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court accepted the concession made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was closed based on the admitted position.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for AY 2009-10. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the issues raised were covered against them by a previous judgment of the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the issues raised in the appeal were covered by a previous judgment of the coordinate bench of the High Court.

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.

ITA 1215/2018 Page 1 of 2

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Decision delivered on: 10.10.2023

+ ITA 1215/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4..... Appellant

Through: Mr Prashant Meharchandani, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat

Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms

Ritika Vohra, Adv.

versus

GE INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr Sachit Jolly with Ms Disha Jham

and Ms Soumya Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-

1.

This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. Via, the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”]. 3. On the previous date, we had noted the stand taken by Mr Prashant Meharchandani, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue. 4. Mr Meharchandani in no uncertain terms had indicated to the court Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:27.10.2023 18:07:01 Signature Not Verified

ITA 1215/2018 Page 2 of 2

that the issues raised in the instant appeal are covered against the appellant/revenue, by virtue of the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this court in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2015] 60 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi). 5. Although Mr Sachit Jolly, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent/assessee, had sought to demonstrate that the issue raised in this appeal did not call for interference by the court de hors the judgment rendered in Rampgreen Solution, he says that the appeal can be disposed of on the basis of statement made by Mr Meharchandani. 6. In that view of the matter, the above-captioned appeal is closed. 7. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER

JUDGE

GIRISH KATHPALIA

JUDGE OCTOBER 10, 2023/RY

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:27.10.2023 18:07:01 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →