AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 23111/2023
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM APPL. 23112/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal]
This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 60 days.
Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application.
Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 263/2023
This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
The appellant/revenue seeks to assail order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”].
The only issue which arises for consideration, according to Mr Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, is whether disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”], read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short, Rules] can be deleted, in a situation when the assessee had not availed of any exempt income?
This issue stands covered by the following decisions:
Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33
CIT v. M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras)
Judgment dated 03.05.2023 passed in ITA 250/2023 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 4 Delhi v. M/s Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Insofar as Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC).
According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
The appeal is, accordingly, closed.