Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Airport Authority Of India
High Court
08 Jan 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Airport Authority Of India
Date of order
08 Jan 2018
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Airport Authority Of India, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. 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
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 12/2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1. ..... AppellantThrough : Sh. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel.
versus
M/S AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Rano Jain and Sh. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R% 08.01.2018
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which upheld the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had ordered the cancellation of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter “the 1961 Act”] in respect of an amount of `4,90,88,000/-.
The assessee for AY 2010-11 had filed its return and thereafter revised it. The Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that the assessee had shown dividend income to the tune of `142.5 crores which was exempt from taxation. Upon his determination, a sum of `4,90,88,000/- was added under Section 14A as the expenditure involved exempt income although the CIT(A) and the ITAT found that as a matter of fact, the exempt income of `142.5 crores had not been obtained and that it was only a proposed dividend.
Page 1 of 2
Having regard to these findings, the question of application of Section 14A of the 1961 Act could not have arisen. There is no substantial question of law.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
JANUARY 08, 2018/ajk
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.