Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S Bharat Hotels Ltd

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12.05.2023 + ITA 272/2023 & CM Nos.24777-78/2023 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr Standing Counsel. versus M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Mr Salil Kapoor and Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral): CM No.24778/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 60 days. 2. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she does not oppose the prayer made in the application. ITA 272/2023 Page 1 of 3 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. CM No.24777/2023 5. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 272/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 7. The appellant seeks to assail the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration is: whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs.3,24,69,741/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] given the fact that the respondent/assessee had not earned any exempt income. 9. This issue stands covered by the following decisions: (i) Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT(2015) 378 ITR 33 (ii) CIT v. M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras) (iii) Judgment dated 03.05.2023 passed in ITA 250/2023 titled Principal –Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Delhi v. M/s Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd. 10. Insofar as Chettinad Logistics is concerned, which included one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., the SLP filed against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). 11. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. ITA 272/2023 Page 2 of 3 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MAY 12, 2023 aj GIRISH KATHPALIA, J ITA 272/2023 Page 3 of 3