Case LawHigh Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, New De...

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, New Delhi v. Metro Institute Of Medical Sciences

High Court 06 Feb 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, New Delhi v. Metro Institute Of Medical Sciences
Date of order
06 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, New Delhi v. Metro Institute Of Medical Sciences, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Consequently, the appeals have no merit and are 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

$~38 & 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 132/2018 & CM APPL.4652/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant versus METRO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Respondent + ITA 133/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant versus METRO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Present: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz, Adv. for Income Tax Deptt. None for respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R% 06.02.2018 In these two appeals, the grievance articulated is with respect to the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income -Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For A.Y. 201011, initially, the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, by applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, was directed to ITA Nos.132/2018 & 133/2018 Page 1 of 2 be deleted on application of the principle enunciated in MSA Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income –Tax (2013) 22 ITR(T) 400 (Chennai Trib.). This was on account of the fact that the investment was made in the subsidiary company and no dividend or exempt income was actually derived from it. For the next year, i.e. A.Y. 2009-10, the ITAT was of the opinion that since, in fact, no exempt income was obtained, the ruling of this Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 378 ITR 33 (Del.) was applicable. This Court is of the opinion that the rationale indicated by the ITAT in both the cases is sound and reasonable. For A.Y. –2010-11, concededly there was no dividend or exempt income which is the fundamental premise for the applicability of Section 14A of the Act. For the other year again, since no income was derived, the reasoning in Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) squarely applies. Consequently, the appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J FEBRUARY 06, 2018 kks A. K. CHAWLA, J ITA Nos.132/2018 & 133/2018
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan