Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Delhi Brass & Metal Works
High Court
08 Dec 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Delhi Brass & Metal Works
Date of order
08 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
1997-98
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Delhi Brass & Metal Works, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~04
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 525/2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.
versus
M/S DELHI BRASS & METAL WORKS ..... Respondent Through Mr. K.N. Ahuja and Mr. Deepak Malik, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 08.12.2017
The present appeal by the Revenue, which relates to assessment year 1997-98, arises from ITA No.2460/DEL/2000 and was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether the provision for charging statutory interest under Section 234B and 234C as applicable to an assessee paying Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) under section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?”
It is accepted by the counsel for the parties that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Commissioner of Income TaxVs. Rolta India Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 470 (SC).
The substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent. No order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2017 NA
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, 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.