Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.

Delhi HC20 Jan 2016ITA/39/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the ITAT's order deleting penalties. It held that non-filing of an appeal by a loss-making entity does not admit to wrongly claiming interest as revenue expenditure and condoned the filing delay.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ITAT is dismissed; filing delay is condoned.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

¶4

ITA 39/2016

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing Counsel.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.01.2016

¶11

CM No.877/2016

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 345 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

ITA 39/2016

¶15

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 6^th June, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.4784/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09.

¶16

This is a penalty appeal. By the impugned order, the ITAT had deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on the Respondent, Delhi Transport Corporation (‘DTC’), under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

¶17

ITA 39/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶18

During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the interest amount in the sum of Rs. 81,83,43,431/- on account of interest paid on plan loan taken for acquisition of capital assets was claimed as revenue expenditure. This interest amount was held to be expenditure of capital nature and therefore added back.

¶19

One of the grounds on which the penalty was levied was that the Assessee did not challenge the assessment order by way of an appeal. As rightly pointed out by the ITAT, the fact of the matter is that the Respondent DTC is facing heavy losses and perhaps did not choose to file an appeal. Nonfiling of the appeal should not lead to the presumption that the Assessee had admitted to having wrongly claimed the interest amount as revenue expenditure. In these circumstances, the deletion of the penalty by the ITAT cannot be said to be perverse.

¶20

No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.

¶21

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶22

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶23

JANUARY 20, 2016/MK

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-(CENTRAL-2) Vs Green Age Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs M. Tech India P. Ltd.

Birbal Academy & Publications Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Joint Commissioner, Central, Excise and Service Tax, Delhi & Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs Manupatra Information Solution

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Digital Radio (Del) Boardcasting Ltd.

Ahluwalia Construction Group Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I