D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MS JITE SHIPYARD LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/757/2023HC DelhiDLHC01052142202313 December 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 noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP on merits and delay. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order for AY 2015-16. The core issue was whether a Section 14A disallowance could exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act can exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 757/2023

Page 1 of 2

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 13.12.2023

+ ITA 757/2023, CM APPL. 64453/2023 & 64454/2023

D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant

Through: Ms Anuja Pethia, Standing Counsel.

versus

MS JITE SHIPYARD 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)

1.

This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. It is not in dispute that the only issue that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is: Whether disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] can exceed the exempt income earned by the respondent/assessee? 4. There is no dispute that the issue raised, hereinabove, is covered by the following judgments: (i) Cheminvest Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 118. Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:19.12.2023 15:14:59 Signature Not Verified

ITA 757/2023

Page 2 of 2

(ii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd., (2017) 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras). 5. To be noted, one of us [Rajiv Shakdher, J.], was part of the bench that authored the judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.. A special leave petition (SLP) filed by the appellant/revenue, against the said judgment, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 [reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC)], both on the grounds of delay and merits. 6. The order of the Supreme Court in the said matter reads as follows: “1. The Special Leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.” 7. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, closed. 8. Consequently, the pending applications are rendered infructuous and are, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

DECEMBER 13, 2023 / tr

Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:19.12.2023 15:14:59 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →