PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -7 vs. M/S. PLANMAN CONSULTING PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1221/2018HC DelhiDLHC01159265201802 November 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee earned no exempt income. It also held that late deposit of employee contributions, if paid before the return filing due date, is allowable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's decision concerning assessment year 2012-13. The appeal raised two issues: disallowance under Section 14A and late deposit of employee contributions.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is applicable when no exempt income is earned, and whether late deposit of employee contributions is allowable if paid before the return filing due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 260A

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.

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1221/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-7..... Appellant Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S. PLANMAN CONSULTING PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R %

02.11.2018 C.M. No.46129/2018

Delay in re-filing is condoned.

ITA No.1221/2018

Two issues/questions are raised by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) in the case of Planman Consulting Pvt. Ltd., which relates to assessment year 2012-13.

The first issue relates to disallowance under Section under Section 14A of the Act. It is an accepted and admitted position that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year in question. This being the position, the issue is covered against the Revenue by decision dated 22nd October, 2018 in ITA No.725/2018, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi Vs. McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd. and two decisions of this High Court

quoted therein, namely, Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax IV [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and Commissioner of Income-tax –IV Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Delhi). Decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) also affirms the said view.

The second issue/question relates to late deposit of Provident Fund, share of Employees State Insurance and professional tax. It is accepted that the said payments were made before the due date of the filing of the return. Accordingly, this issue is covered by decision of this court in ITA No.1063/2008, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd. dated 23rd December, 2009.

In view of the aforesaid position, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal and the same in dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. NOVEMBER 02, 2018 NA

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →