Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-Ii v. M/S Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd
High Court
26 Oct 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-Ii v. M/S Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd
Date of order
26 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-Ii v. M/S Power Grid Corporation Of India 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~2-6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 655/2016, CM APPL.31165-31166/2016 ITA 656/2016, CM APPL.31167-31168/2016 ITA 657/2016, CM APPL.31171-31172/2016 ITA 658/2016, CM APPL.31173-31174/2016
ITA 659/2016, CM APPL.31179-31180/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel.
versus
M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
%
O R D E R26.10.2016
The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is highly belated - by 945 days in refiling. There is hardly any explanation for the delay. The appeal was filed on 20.12.2013 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 the re-organisation of its penal 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 26, 2016/vikas/
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