Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S Ashian Needles Pvt. Ltd
High Court
18 Dec 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S Ashian Needles Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
18 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S Ashian Needles Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~43
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 1151/2017
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1
..... Appellant
ThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar with Mr. RahulChaudhary, Advocates.
versus
M/S ASHIAN NEEDLES PVT. LTD...... Respondent
ThroughNone.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
O R D E R%18.12.2017
CM No.45927/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM No.45926/2017 (for condonation of delay)
We notice that there is an extraordinary delay of 698 days. Thereason given for the delay is entirely unconvincing.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
ITA 1151/2017
This Court notices the reassessment notice. It has been pointedout that the reassessment notice, which is the subject matter of thisappeal, was identical and culminated into a common order of theITAT, which was subject to an appeal previously in ITA 226/2015(Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashian Needles Pvt. Ltd.).TheCourt had rejected the appeal holding as follows:-
“7. The decision of the ITAT having turned on facts, whichhave not been controverted, no substantial question oflaw arises for determination.have not been controverted, no substantial question oflaw arises for determination.
8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed both on theground of the delay in re-filing the appeal as well ason merits.”ground of the delay in re-filing the appeal as well ason merits.”
For the same reasons, the Court also holds that there is nosubstantial question of law.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DECEMBER 18, 2017st
A.K. CHAWLA, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.