Dismissed

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 7 v. M/S P. Mittal Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC13 Feb 2024ITA/127/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, in this Income Tax Reference appeal, dismissed the appellant's challenge to a Revisional Order. The Court held that despite arguments regarding the applicability of an SFIO report exception, the tax effect in the case fell below the permitted ceiling, rendering the appeal non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the tax effect in the case fell below the prescribed minimum threshold.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 7 Vs M/S P. Mittal Manufacturing… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 127/2021

¶4

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Adv. for Mr. Zoheb Hossain, SSC.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S P. MITTAL MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD.

¶8

..... Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Mahir Aggarwal, Adv.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶12

O R D E R % 13.02.2024

¶13

The orders earlier passed in this appeal would indicate that the question of its maintainability came to be raised in the context of Circular No. 3 of 2018 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 11 August 2018 as amended on 20 August 2018.

¶14

Undisputedly, the tax effect in the instant appeal falls below the minimum threshold as prescribed. The Revenue at that stage had sought to place the appeal under Clause 10(e) of the exceptions to the aforenoted pecuniary restrictions contending that in the instant case, the matter had proceeded on the basis of a report of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office [ “SFIO” ].

¶15

However, Mr. Menon, learned counsel, representing the appellant, in all fairness, submits that having gone through the said report, it is evident that the present transaction does not form part thereof. Additionally, we are informed that even the assessment order does not refer to any SFIO report.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:07:53

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal on the ground of tax effect.

¶19

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶20

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. FEBRUARY 13, 2024/neha

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:07:53

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 7 v. M/S P. Mittal Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 7 v. M/S P. Mittal Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 Vs M/S Creamy Foods Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax (Central )-1 Vs Smt. Kundan Singh

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-3, Delhi Vs Sharan Svadha LLP

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX-4, Vs M/S Hcil Comtel Ltd.

Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Tds WARD73(3)

Rps Infrastructure Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-78-1 & Anr.