$~4In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi+Ita 506/2024Principal Commissioner Of Incometax Delhi- 04 v. Ntpc Ltd

$~4*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 506/2024PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX DELHI- 04.....Appellant .....AppellantThrough:Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Adv. withMr.ApoorvAgarwal,Mr.ParthSamwal,Ms.NupurSharma,Mr.Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran SinghJodha,Ms.MuskaaGoel&Mr.Himanshu Gaur, Advs.Mr.ApoorvAgarwal,Mr.ParthSamwal,Ms.NupurSharma,Mr.Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran SinghJodha,Ms.MuskaaGoel&Mr.Himanshu Gaur, Advs. Versus NTPC LTD .....Respondent Through:Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Mr. NischayKantoor & Mr. Govind Gupta, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJUO R D E R%21.10.2024 CM Nos.56662/2024 & 56663/2024 1.For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing and re-filing the present appeal is condoned.filing the present appeal is condoned. 2.The applications are disposed of. ITA 506/2024 3.The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning the common orderdated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned ITAT in a batch of appeals / crossappeals including the assessee’s appeal being ITA No.7063/Del/2014 inrespect of the assessment year (AY) 2010-11. The Revenue has filed thepresent appeal in respect of the impugned order insofar as it allowed theassessee’s appeal (ITA No.7063/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11). 4.The principal question projected by the Revenue relates to the additionof ₹4,40,76,00,000/- on account of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act). The assessee’s exempt income forthe relevant assessment year (AY 2010-11) comprised of interest amountingto ₹999.12 crores on tax free bonds and dividend of ₹77.70 crores. These incomes were not chargeable to tax by virtue of Section 10 of the Act. TheAO had sought to make a disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A ofthe Act in proportion to the income exempt from tax. 5.Admittedly, the assessee had not borrowed any funds for making aninvestment in the interest free bonds. The bonds were issued as a result of aOne Time Settlement Scheme whereby, amounts due from other accumulateddebtors were converted into the said investment. The dividend earned by theassessee was in respect of its own subsidiary joint venture company. 6.This Court is informed that the appeal preferred by the Revenue inrespect of the common order impugned in the present petition in respect ofother assessment years [being ITA Nos.502/2024 and 503/2024] have beendismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that nosubstantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 7.Concededly, a similar order is required to be passed in this appeal aswell. 8.Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 21, 2024‘gsr’ TARA VITASTA GANJU, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any