Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds)-I v. M/S Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd
High Court
05 Oct 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds)-I v. M/S Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd
Date of order
05 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds)-I v. M/S Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Even otherwise we notice that the question of law urged, i.e. whether in this case the respondent could be treated as an assessee in default for the purpose of Section 201 read with Section 194J is now covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 601/2016, C.M. APPL.29880/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS)-I ..... AppellantThrough : Sh. Ruchir Bhatia and Sh. Puneet Rai, Advocates.
versus
M/S ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.
..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R
%
05.10.2016
There is a delay of 955 days in refiling of the appeal; there is no sufficient cause shown for the delay. The appeal was returned, but re-filed after nearly 3 years for which the grounds urged are completely unreasonable and untenable. The application to condone the delay is, therefore, rejected.
Even otherwise we notice that the question of law urged, i.e. whether in this case the respondent could be treated as an assessee in default for the purpose of Section 201 read with Section 194J is now covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. 193 Taxmann 97 (SC) and subsequently of this Court in Asia Satellite Communications Company Ltd. v. Director of Income Tax 332 ITR 340 (Del).The ITAT has followed these as well as other judgments of the Madras High Court. No question of law, therefore arises.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
OCTOBER 05, 2016/ajk
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
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.