The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central-3 v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd
High Court
25 Nov 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central-3 v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
25 Nov 2016
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central-3 v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % O R D E R 25.11.2016 The issue involved is whether under Rule 8D - on an application of Section 14A what ought to be the nature of investment to be taken into account for computing the disallowance.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 455/2016
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3)
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Rai, Jr. Standing Counsel.
versus
ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Navet, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
%
O R D E R
25.11.2016
The issue involved is whether under Rule 8D - on an application of Section 14A what ought to be the nature of investment to be taken into account for computing the disallowance. This Court in the assessee’s case for another year AY 2008-09 concluded that the disallowance was to be premised only upon a conclusion that takes into account the investment which ultimately yields tax imposition, refer CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.605/2012, decided on 15.01.2013). The CIT (A) and the ITAT followed that decision. We see no reason to depart from that decision. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NOVEMBER 25, 2016/vikas/
NAJMI WAZIRI, 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.
EaseValue