In Answering The Above Question In Favour Of The Assessee, The Itat Has Relied On The Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.279 Ctr 384 (Del
High Court
31 Jan 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
In Answering The Above Question In Favour Of The Assessee, The Itat Has Relied On The Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.279 Ctr 384 (Del
Date of order
31 Jan 2023
Assessment year(s)
2012-13
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In In Answering The Above Question In Favour Of The Assessee, The Itat Has Relied On The Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.279 Ctr 384 (Del, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal under Section 40 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ITA No.23 of 2021
…. Principal Commissioner of Income Appellant Tax, Bhubaneswar
Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department -versus-
…. M/s. ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd.
Respondent
None
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
ORDER
31.01.2023
Order No.
01.
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the judgment dated 22[nd] January, 2021 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in ITA No.109/CTK/2020 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. dated 22[nd] January, 2021 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in ITA No.109/CTK/2020 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The ground urged by the Revenue before this Court is whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of the taxable income of the Assessee by treating the second proviso of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as having retrospective effect from 1[st] April, 2005, the date on which sub-clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of the Act was inserted?
3. In answering the above question in favour of the Assessee, the ITAT has relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.279 CTR 384 (Del).
4. Mr. Tushar Kanti Satpathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department is unable to inform the Court of any appeal having been filed by the Revenue against the said decision of Delhi High Court which resulted in the reversal of the said judgment.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the Department, the Court is not persuaded the ITAT has erred in its conclusion following the judgment of the Delhi High Court which appears to have been accepted by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court is not inclined to frame the question as urged.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) (M. S. Raman)
Chief Justice
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
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