The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 v. Tikona Infinet Ltd
High Court
12 Sep 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 v. Tikona Infinet Ltd
Date of order
12 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 v. Tikona Infinet Ltd, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In view of the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue, the appeal is disposed of without answering the issue/question raised.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 998/2018
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
versus
TIKONA INFINET LTD.
Through:
..... Respondent
Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Advocate
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R% 12.09.2018
CM No.37173/2018
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions,
Application is disposed of.
CM Nos.37171/2018 & 37174/2018
Delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal is condoned, as there is no opposition by learned counsel for the Revenue. The applications are allowed.
ITA No.998/2018 & CM No.37172/2018
Counsel for the appellant-Revenue states that the tax effect in the present appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs and hence, in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the appeal may be disposed of without answering the issue/question raised, which may be left open. Counsel for the respondent-assessee states that the issue
of depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals is covered by several decisions of this court, including Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 47 (Delhi). In view of the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue, the appeal is disposed of without answering the issue/question raised. We, however, clarify that this order would not in any way affect the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the respondent-assessee.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 tp
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
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.