Case LawHigh Court › The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax...

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. Bmw India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

High Court 12 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. Bmw India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon
Date of order
12 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
2011-2012
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. Bmw India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 5.For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, thepresent appeal is also dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

ITA-370-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-370-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.3.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus ....Appellant. BMW India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.Delay of 150 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.3.2017(Annexure A-II) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DelhiBench: 1-2, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in SA No.178/DEL/2017 IN ITA No. 1514/DEL/2016, for the assessment year 2011-2012, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted incontravention of the Second Proviso of Section254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as thecombined period of stay has been exceeded 365days?contravention of the Second Proviso of Section254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as thecombined period of stay has been exceeded 365days? 2.Whether the order of the ITAT be treated as void- ITA-370-2018 -2- ab-initio in light of Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which providesthat stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of aperiod of 365 days, even if delay in disposal ofappeal is not attributable to the assessee? 3.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4.It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant- revenue that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and standsconcluded by the decision of this Court in ITA-5-2016 decided on25.4.2016 whereby identical question as claimed in the present appeal, hasbeen held not to be substantial question of law. 5.For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, thepresent appeal is also dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 12, 2019(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)gbsJUDGE
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