PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/343/2023HC DelhiDLHC01024943202305 July 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the court. Consequently, the appeal was closed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order for AY 2006-07. There was a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal, which the High Court condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Whether the issue is covered by a previous judgment 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 343/2023

Pg. 1 of 2 $~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 05.07.2023 + ITA 343/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Easha Kadian and Ms Hemlata Rawat, Advocates.

versus

NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: None.

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 APPL. 33435/2023 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM APPL. 33436/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the appeal] 2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2.1 According to Mr Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 14 days. 3. Having regard to the period of delay involved, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The prayer made in the application is allowed. The delay is, accordingly, condoned. 5. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 343/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:07.07.2023 10:44:14 Signature Not Verified

ITA 343/2023

Pg. 2 of 2 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] in ITA No. 5470/Del/2015. 8. Mr Kumar informs us that the issue raised in the instant appeal stands covered by the decision rendered by this court on 01.06.2023 in ITA No. 321/2023, 324/2023 and 325/2023. 8.1 To be noted, in the said order, we had recorded that the issue raised was covered by a judgment of a coordinate bench of this court rendered in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 612. 9. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, closed. 11. The Registry will dispatch the copy of the order passed today to the respondent/assessee via all modes including email. 12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

(RAJIV SHAKDHER)

JUDGE

(GIRISH KATHPALIA) JUDGE

JULY 5, 2023/v

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:07.07.2023 10:44:14 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →