ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXOTIQUE EXPORT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3233/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 December 2016AY 2008-092 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that all government authorities are bound by the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to follow the High Court's ruling.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which directed the Assessing Officer to follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision in deleting an addition of Rs. 36,66,405/-. The addition was made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision regarding an addition made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

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(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, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVASHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
For Respondent: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA
Hearing: 06.12.2016Pronounced: 13.12.2016

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dated 28th February, 2014.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

“1. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case, whether the ld.CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to follow the decision and particularly the directions and ratio of Jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT (2012) 312 ITR 272 (Delhi)/(2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Del) while deleting the addition of Rs.36,66,405/- under section 14A Rule (8D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is perverse both in facts and law.

2 ITA-3233/Del/2014

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. After considering the arguments of both the sides, in our opinion, the only answer to the ground raised by the Revenue can be “yes”. All government authorities acting within the territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court are bound by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, when learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision/direction of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi), it cannot be said that he was not right. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 13.12.2016.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →