Dismissed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -CENTRAL-3 v. Intel Invofin India Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC23 Jan 2019ITA/57/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of revenue appeals and pending applications under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The court held that since the Supreme Court affirmed views in Maxopp Investment and Taikisha Engineering (Godrej case), no substantial question of law arose regarding the disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D.

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed of; no question of law arises due to Supreme Court precedent affirming section 14A and Rule 8D principles.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -CENTRAL-3 Vs Intel Invofin… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~79 to 81

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 56/2019 & CM APPL. 3358/2019

¶4

- ITA 57/2019 & CM APPL. 3359-60/2019

¶5

- ITA 58/2019 & CM APPL. 3362-63/2019

¶6

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Std. Counsel.

¶7

versus

¶8

CELLPHONE CREDIT & SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondents INTEL INVOFIN INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondents SHYAM BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R % 23.01.2019

¶12

This is the Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A, questioning the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT]. It is urged that the disallowance directed by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D was justified.

¶13

The investment in question, which were the amounts sought to be disallowed on account of tax exempt income received by the assessee, were subject matter of appeal to the CIT(A).

¶14

ITA Nos. 56, 57 & 58 of 2019

¶15

page 1 of 2

¶16

The Appellate Commissioner was of the opinion that there was no proper examination of the amounts offered in the explanation given by the assessee, and that consequently in the absence of application of mind by the AO while rejecting the assessee’s position under Section 14A, he did not form an opinion. The CIT(A)’s views were upheld by the ITAT, which relied upon the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 347 ITR 272, [ CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC)] and Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 109 (Delhi): (2015) 370 ITR 338.

¶17

We notice that the view expressed in Maxopp Investment (supra) and Taikisha Engineering (supra) were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2017) 81 Taxmann.com: 111 (SC).

¶18