In Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The application and the appeal are accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 642/2016 & C.M.30983/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
versus
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R% 21.10.2016
The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act –is highly belated by 975 days. There is hardly any explanation for the delay. The appeal was filed on 19.10.2013 but appears to have been kept objected to. The Income Tax department does not seem to have any clue about the filing of the appeal or the objections raised by the registry. It refers to re-organisation of its panel and cites the pendency of large number of appeals marked defective. The reasons can hardly be considered sufficient cause to condone the delay.
The application and the appeal are accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
OCTOBER 21, 2016/rb
DEEPA SHARMA, 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.
EaseValue