In this income tax appeal, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the Revenue's challenge against an extension of stay granted by the ITAT, holding the issue settled by Pepsi Foods precedent and finding the appeal lacked merit.
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.
$~23
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel.
versus
VALVOLINE CUMMINS PVT LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R % 06.04.2018
The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of stay beyond the period of 365 days, granted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The Court is of the opinion that this issue is covered against the Revenue’s in the judgment reported as Pepsi Foods Private Limited v. ACIT 376 ITR 87.
The appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
APRIL 06, 2018/AJK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the extension of stay beyond the period of 365 days by the ITAT is permissible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pepsi Foods Private Limited v. ACIT 376 ITR 87Applied¶12
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-9
Valvoline Cummins Pvt Ltd.
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
