Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-7 Delhi v. Religare Enterprises Ltd.

Delhi HC10 Jan 2024ITA/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income tax appeal challenging an ITAT order that had remitted to the Assessing Officer the assessee's suo moto disallowance of Rs.17,21,80,860/- under Section 14A. The High Court found no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal. Delay in filing was condoned.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 104 days condoned; exemption application allowed; appeal dismissed with no interference in ITAT order remitting Section 14A disallowance to the AO.

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-7 Delhi Vs Religare… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 28/2024 & CM APPL. 1572/2024 (104 Days Delay)

¶4

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 DELHI

¶5

..... Appellant

¶6

Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. SC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Jr. SC along with Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.

¶9

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate.

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 10.01.2024

¶13

CM APPL. 1573/2024 (Exemption)

¶14

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The application stands disposed of.

¶16

CM APPL. 1572/2024 (104 Days Delay)

¶17

Bearing in mind the disclosures made, the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

Application shall stand disposed of.

¶19

ITA 28/2024

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ ITAT ”], we find that the appeal has been allowed and the matter remitted with the following observations:-

¶21

This is a digitally signed order. 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 17/05/2024 at 12:26:55

¶22

“5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the assessee is now raising ground challenging the disallowance which has been made by the assessee itself. Assessee has made suo moto disallowance of Rs.17,21,80,860/- under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Now, the assessee submits that this was wrongly done. This aspect was not before the authorities below. Assessee has made various submissions with regard to the aforesaid additional/modified grounds which need adjudication with reference to the assessee’s records. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised to the file of AO. AO is directed to consider the grounds and various propositions given by the ld. Counsel of the assessee as per law. Needless to add, assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard.”

¶23

Bearing in mind the aforesaid, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal.

¶24

Consequently, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ITAT. The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed on the aforesaid terms .

¶25

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶26

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. JANUARY 10, 2024/ Neha/p

¶27

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-7 Delhi v. Religare Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-7 Delhi v. Religare Enterprises 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

Novartis Ag Vs Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.

Bharat Bhushan Jindal Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-12 & Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Vs Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd.

Copal Market Research Limited Now Known as Moodys Analytics Knowledge Services Research (Mauritius) Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax 2 International Taxation & Ors.

M/S Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 25(1)

Suzuki Motor Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax 3(1)(2) Delhi & Anr.