Ita/612/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi - 8 v. M/S. Shivaai Industries Pvt. Ltd
High Court
21 May 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Ita/612/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi - 8 v. M/S. Shivaai Industries Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
21 May 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/612/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi - 8 v. M/S. Shivaai Industries Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: ITA 612/2018 The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT which upheld the CIT(A)’s decision with respect to the disallowance under Section 40A(1A).
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
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 612/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - 8
..... Appellant Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.
versus
M/S. SHIVAAI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Through None.
..... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R% 21.05.2018
CM APPL 21401/2018 (delay in refiling)
In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 93 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
ITA 612/2018
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT which upheld the CIT(A)’s decision with respect to the disallowance under Section 40A(1A). The Assessing Officer’s decision to add back the amount, on the ground that the TDS has not been deducted, was upset by the CIT(A) who noticed that the payee i.e. the Delhi Transport Corporation had reflected the amount as its tax liability in its returns.
This issue is covered by a judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajinder Kumar 2013 TIOL 547 and also the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 365(Delhi)
In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no question
of law arise.
Appeal is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
MAY 21, 2018 ndn
A. K. CHAWLA, 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.