The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Ge India Business Services Pvt. Ltd
High Court
10 Oct 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Ge India Business Services Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
10 Oct 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Ge India Business Services Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Signature Not Verified
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 10.10.2023
+ ITA 1215/2018
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4..... Appellant Through: Mr Prashant Meharchandani, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms Ritika Vohra, Adv. Through: Mr Prashant Meharchandani, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms Ritika Vohra, Adv.
versus
GE INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent Through: Mr Sachit Jolly with Ms Disha Jham and Ms Soumya Singh, Advs.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.
2. Via, the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”].
3. On the previous date, we had noted the stand taken by Mr Prashant Meharchandani, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue.
4. Mr Meharchandani in no uncertain terms had indicated to the court
ITA 1215/2018 Page 1 of 2
Signature Not Verified
that the issues raised in the instant appeal are covered against the appellant/revenue, by virtue of the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this court in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2015] 60 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi).
5. Although Mr Sachit Jolly, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent/assessee, had sought to demonstrate that the issue raised in this appeal did not call for interference by the court de hors the judgment rendered in Rampgreen Solution, he says that the appeal can be disposed of on the basis of statement made by Mr Meharchandani.
6. In that view of the matter, the above-captioned appeal is closed.
7. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER JUDGE
GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGE
OCTOBER 10, 2023/RY
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 1215/2018 Page 2 of 2
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.