Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, –Delhi 02 v. Best Infrastructure India (P) Ltd
High Court
13 Oct 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, –Delhi 02 v. Best Infrastructure India (P) Ltd
Date of order
13 Oct 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, –Delhi 02 v. Best Infrastructure India (P) Ltd, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
19
+ ITA 869/2017
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, –DELHI 02
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior standing counsel.
versus
BEST INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain with Mr. Pranjal Srivastava and Ms. Devina Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R% 13.10.2017
CM APPL 36953/2017 (exemption)
1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL 36954/2017 (delay of 12 days in filing)
2. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
ITA 869/2017
3. This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), is directed against the impugned order dated 8[th] February 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2742/Del/2014 for the
ITA 869/2017
Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09.
4. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 A of the Act was erroneous inasmuch as the material seized during the search was not ‘incriminating'?
5. It is seen that the ITAT has come to the above conclusion by relying on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Del).The ITAT has, in the impugned order, discussed in detail the 'materials’ seized during the course of search and has concluded that it was not incriminating.
6. Having been shown the same material by the learned counsel for the Revenue, the Court too is unable to come to a different conclusion. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2017
Rm
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
ITA 869/2017
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.