Dismissed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 v. Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC18 Jan 2019ITA/33/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the allowable deduction under Section 80IB. The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the lower authorities correctly applied the settled law by disregarding irrelevant material from the Auditor's report.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no relief granted to the appellant.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 Vs Eltek Sgs Pvt… — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

- ITA 33/2019

¶3

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia & Mr.Puneet Rai, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

ELTEK SGS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Piyush Kaushik, Advocate

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 18.01.2019

¶10

CM APPL. 2109/2019

¶11

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 325 days in refilling the appeal is condoned.

¶12

The application is disposed of.

¶13

ITA 33/2019

¶14

The Revenue’s grievance in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is that the lower Appellate Authorities fell into error in holding that the respondent/assessee was entitled – for the given Assessment Year [2005-2006], to the benefit under Section 80IB.

¶15

The assessee company is a private company, engaged in manufacture and trade of electronic and electrical equipments and goods. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2005, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act and its claim under Section 80IB was allowed. ITA 33/2019 page 1 of 2

¶16

page 1 of 2

¶17

Subsequently, its case was re-opened; the AO noted that the assessee – an industrial undertaking, commenced production on 15.03.1997. This was after the sunset date i.e. 31.03.1995. The AO also felt, in addition, that apart from this disqualifying factor, the assessee was not a small scale undertaking, within the meaning of that expression, in terms of the Ministry of Industry’s DIPP order dated 10.12.1997, having regard to the Audit Report. The CIT(A), on the appeal by the assessee, accepted its plea and held that the turnover stipulations in terms of the investments in the fixed assets by Note 1 of the DIPP circular had been complied with. The ITAT affirmed the decision of the CIT(A).

¶18

The Revenue highlights the report of the Auditor and submits that since this was the material on record, which the AO gave importance to, CIT(A) as well as ITAT were in error in choosing to ignore it. This Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises, as it is far too well settled that the duty of the Assessing Officer is to apply the law in the given facts regardless of the position of the Revenue or the assessee in the course of the proceedings [refer to Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. 4. As a result, the appeal lacks merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶20

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶21

JANUARY 18, 2019/ „hkaur‟

¶22

page 2 of 2

¶23

ITA 33/2019

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 v. Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 v. Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Krishna Enterprises Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Jyotsna Chikersal & Anr.

Naveen Bhatia Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemption) Vs Accurate Educational & Research Society

Ssapp Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)

The Peoples Welfare Society Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi