Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5,New Delhi v. Kama Holdings Ltd.through:none
High Court
08 Sep 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5,New Delhi v. Kama Holdings Ltd.through:none
Date of order
08 Sep 2017
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5,New Delhi v. Kama Holdings Ltd.through:none, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: For the reasons as stated in the said order dated 16[th]August 2017, thepresent appeal is also dismissed as, in the considered view of the Court, nosubstantial question of law arises in the present appeal as well.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~4
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ITA No. 726/2017
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,NEW DELHI
..... Appellant
Through:Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior StandingCounsel.
versus
KAMA HOLDINGS LTD.Through:None.
..... Respondent
CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R%08.09.2017
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(‘Act’) by the Revenue against the order dated 27[th]March 2017 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2993/Del/2014 forthe Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09.
2. The question urged by the Revenue in the present appeal also arose inITA No. 818/2016 filed by the Revenue against the order dated11[th]May 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1555/Del/2014 for AY 2009-10.
3. The said ITA No. 818/2016 has been dismissed by this Court vide orderdated 16[th]August 2017. The Court was of the view that no substantial
ITA 726/2017
question of law arose for consideration.
4. For the reasons as stated in the said order dated 16[th]August 2017, thepresent appeal is also dismissed as, in the considered view of the Court, nosubstantial question of law arises in the present appeal as well.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017dk
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
ITA 726/2017
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