Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax (Central)-I v. Nagesh War Investment Ltd
High Court
20 Jul 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax (Central)-I v. Nagesh War Investment Ltd
Date of order
20 Jul 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax (Central)-I v. Nagesh War Investment Ltd, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The Court is of the view that the essential principle of law that has been settled by this Court in Pepsico in regard to the interpretation of the words "belongs to" in Section 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would apply on all fours to the facts of the present case irrespective of whether the doc...
Decision: The appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$-.
*
5.
+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA 406/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I
Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate.
versus
•
NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD
WITH
6/
(4
ITA 407/2015
Respondent
PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME
TAX (CENTRAL)-I
Appcllant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate.
is
'a
+
versus•
NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD
WITH
ITA 408/2015
Respondent
PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME
TAX (CENTRAL)-I
Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate.
versus
ITA Nos. 406, 407,408 & 409 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
.
NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD. . Respondent
rnI
8.
+ ITA 409/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I
Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate.
versus
NAGESH WAR INVESTMENT LTD
Respondent
.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER % 20.07.2015
CM Nos. 11910/2015, 11911/2015 & 11912/2015 (for exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
ITA Nos. 406/2015, 407/2015, 408/2015 & 409/2015
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') has in the common impugned order dated [28th ] November 2014 pertaining to Assessment Years ('AYs') 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 relied upon, inter alia, on
ITA Nos. 406, 407, 408 & 409 of 2015
the judgment of this Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Delhi). It is stated that the judgment of this Court in Pepsico is pending consideration in a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. However no stay has been granted of the operation of the judgment of this Court.
Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the ITAT has also relied on the decision of its coordinate Bench in V.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 5460-5465/Del/2012) which in turn relied on an earlier order of the ITAT in DSL Properties FyI. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 113 49/Del/20 12). He states that the decision of the ITAT in DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd (supra) is the subject matter of a separate appeal in this Court being ITA No. 585/2013 which is pending consideration. He accordingly prays that these appeals be taken up with ITA No. 585/2013.
The Court is of the view that the essential principle of law that has been settled by this Court in Pepsico in regard to the interpretation of the words "belongs to" in Section 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would apply on all fours to the facts of the present case irrespective of whether the document recovered (viz., the accounts) is in the form of a hard copy or a hard disk.
ITA Nos. 406, 407, 408 & 409 of 2015
Consequently, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order of the ITAT which gives rise to a substantial question of law.
6. The appeals are dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
JULY 20, 2015/dn
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
ITA Nos. 406, 407, 408 & 409 of 2015
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.