Case Law › High Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ce...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) - 3 v. M/S Appolo Traexim Pvt. Ltd

High Court 13 Apr 2018 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · dhcdb

Parties

Date of order

13 Apr 2018

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) - 3 v. M/S Appolo Traexim Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 448/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus M/S APPOLO TRAEXIM PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 13.04.2018 The Revenue appeals against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which set aside the search assessment, on the ground that the additions made on account of disallowance determined pursuant to the search assessment, were not based upon seizures of any incriminating material recovered during the course of the search. The ITAT relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla’, 380 ITR 573. In these circumstances, no question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J APRIL 13, 2018/ndn A. K. CHAWLA, 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.