PCIT ROHTAK V. M/S PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT LTD

ITA/73/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak against M/s Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'F'. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2015, which was based on the grounds that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly found that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. The High Court noted that the ITAT had considered all grounds and examined the effects relating to the deletion of addition on account of denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The court found that the ITAT had followed its previous order for the assessment year 2012-13, where the same issue was addressed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742486 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURI OPAL
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Deduction Denial; Form 10CCB; Income Tax; ITAT
• Section: 260A; 80IA(4)

Judgement Text

"ITA-73-2024 (O&M) 136/108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak M/s Paliwal Overseas Pvt CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA No.208 2014-15 2. Learned counsel the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds taken therein factual finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the asse his original assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the assessment records. 3. We find that the ITAT considered the grounds together and also examined the effect relating to deletion of addition denial of deduction followed its order for the AY 2012 (O&M) Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak Vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. **** PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA No.2083/DEL/2018 whereby the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 15 was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a perversity in the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds taken therein. It is stated that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly given a factual finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the asse his original assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the assessment records. We find that the ITAT considered the grounds together and also examined the effect relating to deletion of addition denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The ITAT followed its order for the AY 2012-13 where also the same issue was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-73-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA /DEL/2018 whereby the Revenue’s appeal for the AY for the appellant submits that there is a perversity in the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds . It is stated that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly given a factual finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during his original assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the We find that the ITAT considered the grounds together and also examined the effect relating to deletion of addition on account of under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The ITAT 13 where also the same issue was (O&M) .2024 Appellant . . . Respondent This is an appeal preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA /DEL/2018 whereby the Revenue’s appeal for the AY for the appellant submits that there is a perversity in the order passed by the ITAT, and it has failed to consider the grounds . It is stated that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly given a ssee during his original assessment proceedings, and the fact is not borne out of the We find that the ITAT considered the grounds together and also on account of under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The ITAT 13 where also the same issue was MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-73-2024 (O&M) examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on factual grounds that there were more than fi from the same owner of the property from AY 2006 for AY 2010 confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). 4. Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find any substantial question of law required to be examined by this Court. 5. Appeal is 6. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. October 03, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? (O&M) Page 2 of 2 examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on factual grounds that there were more than five units and a single tenant can hire two distinct units from the same owner of the property from AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 which had not been disputed. for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the ITAT has taken the same view and irmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find any substantial question of law required to be examined by this Court. Appeal is dismissed having no merits. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on factual grounds that there a single tenant can hire two distinct units from the same owner of the property. The claim had been allowed 10 which had not been disputed. Therefore 13, the ITAT has taken the same view and irmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find any substantial question of law required to be examined by this Court. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No examined by it, and the ITAT had confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The aspect was examined on factual grounds that there a single tenant can hire two distinct units . The claim had been allowed Therefore 13, the ITAT has taken the same view and Factual findings arrived at by the ITAT and the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and ITAT having been noticed as above, we do not find MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "