In two appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision regarding penalty deletion for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. The court noted the ITAT's reasoning on depreciation classification and found no perversity or substantial question of law, dismissing the appeals.
The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4. + ITA 11/2016 PR. CIT-06 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel. versus MORADABAD TOLL ROAD CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: AND 5. + ITA 12/2016 PR. CIT-06 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel. versus MORADABAD TOLL ROAD CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 13.01.2016 CM No.323/2016 (for exemption)
ITA Nos11 & 12 of 2016 Page 1 of 3
ITA Nos.11/2016 & 12/2016
ITA Nos11 & 12 of 2016 Page 2 of 3
S. MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JANUARY 13, 2016 MK
Page 3 of 3
ITA Nos11 & 12 of 2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT(A) order for AY 2003-04 and reversing it for AY 2004-05 regarding penalty deletion?
Whether the question of treating toll roads as 'plant and machinery' or 'building' for depreciation raises a substantial question of law requiring Supreme Court interference?
Whether the impugned ITAT order suffers from perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
PR. CIT-06
MORADABAD TOLL ROAD CO. LTD.
S. MURALIDHAR
VIBHU BAKHRU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
