Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 09 v. M/S. Vertex Customer Services India Pvt. Ltd
High Court
12 Feb 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 09 v. M/S. Vertex Customer Services India Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
12 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 09 v. M/S. Vertex Customer Services India Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently, the appeal too is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 172/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 09
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.
versus
M/S. VERTEX CUSTOMER SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R% 12.02.2018
CM APPL.5358/2018(delay in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
ITA 172/2018 & CM APPL.5357/2018(delay in filing)
–The appeal is highly belated by 489 days. The explanation
given for the delay is that of unavailability of sufficient staff on account of demonetisation and also that file movement on account of transfers, etc. Instant appeal was filed on 19.09.2017; the ITAT’s order made on 22.04.2016. The demonetisation occurred ITA No.172/2018 Page 1 of 2
on 08.09.2016. Considering all these facts, the explanation given is unconvincing and cannot be called as “sufficient cause”. Even otherwise, the Court is of the opinion that the issue urged with respect to exclusion of four comparables, ought not to be interfered with. With respect to two comparables plainly, the ITAT’s reasoning is justified. In any case, the ITAT’s findings are neither unreasonable nor perverse.
The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal too is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2018 kks
A. K. CHAWLA, J
ITA No.172/2018
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.