Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central - 2 v. Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd Through: None
High Court
28 Feb 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central - 2 v. Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd Through: None
Date of order
28 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central - 2 v. Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd Through: None, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: ITA 264/2018 Page 1 of 2 The application and consequently the appeal are, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 264/2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL - 2)
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsels for Revenue. versus
TANVIR COLLECTIONS 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% 28.02.2018
CM APPL. 7841/2018(exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
ITA 264/2018 & CM APPL. 7842/2018(delay in re-filing)
There is a delay of 698 days in re-filing of the appeal, by the Revenue. The Revenue seeks to explain the delay and requests for condonation on the ground that it was severely understaffed and the panel was reorganized. These expressions cannot fall within the term “sufficient cause”. Consequently, the application is unmerited and therefore dismissed.
Even otherwise, the Court notices that the question of law urged in this appeal is covered by the judgment in ITA No.510/2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Aakash Arogya Mandir Pvt. Ltd. decided on 27.07.2015). ITA 264/2018 Page 1 of 2
The application and consequently the appeal are, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 kks
A. K. CHAWLA, J
ITA 264/2018
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