Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd

High Court 20 Sep 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
20 Sep 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 765/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr.Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus CHEMICAL CONSTRUCTION INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R% 20.09.2017 1. There are two questions projected by the Revenue for consideration by this Court in this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 10[th] January 2017 in ITA No. 5516/Del/2006. 2.The first question concerns deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) of Rs. 3,44,02,000/- on account of ‘revenue recognition’ on account of various projects undertaken by the Assessee. As far as this question is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] held that the AO made the above addition on the basis that the Assessee ought to have followed the percentage completion method whereas the Assessee was able to establish that it had consistently been following the ITA No.765/2017 Page 1 of 2 project completion method for recognizing revenue. This has been concurred with by the ITAT in its order dated 10[th] January 2017. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, the Court is not satisfied that the orders of the ITAT and the CIT (A) suffer from perversity giving rise to any substantial question of law for consideration. 4. As regards the second question concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 22,94,585/- by the AO, by disallowing the technical know-how fees, the ITAT has given cogent reasons as to why said fees were of revenue nature. Here again, the Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the ITAT giving rise to any substantial question of law. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 ‘anb’ PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan