Disposed

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai v. Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC1 May 2025ITA/535/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue appeals concerning applicability of proviso to Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act were remanded by consent as the issue was not argued before ITAT. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted to ITAT for fresh consideration, parties waiving objection on grounds not raised below.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to ITAT to consider afresh; appeals disposed of by consent.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai Vs Air India Sats Airport… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~13 to 15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 535/2024

¶4

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5, MUMBAI .....Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Mr Rishabh Nangia, Advocates. versus AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr Parcy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate. AND + ITA 536/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5, MUMBAI .....Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Mr Rishabh Nangia, Advocates. versus AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr Parcy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate. AND + ITA 537/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5, MUMBAI .....Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Mr Rishabh Nangia, Advocates. versus AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent

¶5

This is a digitally signed order.

¶6

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 05/05/2025 at 14:50:46

¶7

Through: Mr Parcy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R

¶9

% 01.05.2025

¶10

After some arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that the issue regarding the applicability of the proviso to subsection 4 of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not advanced and examined before the learned ITAT and therefore, the learned ITAT had no occasion to examine the same.

¶11

The learned counsel submits that the matter be remanded to the learned ITAT to consider afresh.

¶12

The parties are also ad idem that no objection would be taken by the respondent on the ground that the apposite grounds of appeal, which could possibly lead to the questions of law as projected by the Revenue in this appeal, were not raised before the learned ITAT.

¶13

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned ITAT to consider afresh.

¶14

The above captioned appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶15

It is clarified that this order has been passed with the consent of the parties.

¶16

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶17

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶18

MAY 1, 2025 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 05/05/2025 at 14:50:46

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai v. Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai v. Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. 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

Sigma Trade Wing LLP & Ors. Vs Touchwood Entertainment Limited

Conner Institute of Health Care and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Circle- 73(1), Delhi

Conner Institute of Health Care and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Vinosha Reality Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(3) Delhi & Ors.

Pr.Commissioner of Tax Vs Rj Corp. Ltd.

Rp Basia and Co. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 63 (1) N Ew Delhi