High CourtsDivision Bench(2007) 10 DEL CK 0222

Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Delhi High Court · Decided on 5 October 2007 · Citation: (2008) 170 TAXMAN 470

HON’BLE JUDGES
Madan B. Lokur, J · Dr. S. Muralidhar, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 281 words
1.

The assessee is aggrieved by an order dated 13-4-2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ''F'', New Delhi) in I.T.A. No. 792/Delhi/2007 relevant for the assessment year 1997-98.

2.

In the first round of litigation, which was carried up to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') one of the questions required to be determined was whether the assessee was carrying on business in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question.

3.

The Tribunal in its order passed in the first round of litigation on 19-10-2004 came to the conclusion that the commencement of business was effected in the last quarter of the financial year relevant to the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that any expenditure claimed by the assessee for setting up its business prior to that date could not be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal remitted back the matter to the assessing officer to determine the actual date of commencement of business. The above conclusion of the Tribunal was not challenged and has become final.

4.

In the second round, the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the assessee had commenced its business on 8-1-1997 when the assessee accepted the offer for import of materials.

5.

This factual conclusion having been arrived at by all the three authorities below, we are not persuaded to take a different view. No perversity in the impugned order has been shown by learned Counsel.

6.

Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

7.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.