Ita/283/2019 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 v. Versus Ultra International Ltd
High Court
29 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Ita/283/2019 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 v. Versus Ultra International Ltd
Date of order
29 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/283/2019 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 v. Versus Ultra International Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 283/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9.. Appellant Through : Mr. Puneet Rai and Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advs. versus ULTRA INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Respondent Through : None.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R
% 29.03.2019
The Revenue urges two questions of law in its appeal under Section 260A i.e. the correctness of the ITAT’s view with respect to (i) capital expenditure claimed but disallowed under Section 35(1)(iv) initially by the A.O. but set aside by the lower appellate authorities and (ii) the deduction claimed under Section 37 in respect of expenditure for repair of road (Rs.17.86 lakhs).
On both the aspects, this court notices that the lower appellate authorities disagreed and set aside the view taken by the A.O. Furthermore, on the larger sum under Section 35(1)(iv), this court notices that the lower appellate authorities had noted that the capital expenditure was not claimed during the succeeding year; clearly the issue was Revenue neutral. As a consequence, this court holds that there is no substantial question of law which requires adjudication.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
MARCH 29, 2019/aj
PRATEEK JALAN, 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.