Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi v. Petrotech

Delhi High Court · 28 Sep 2022
Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
ITA 372/2022 & ITA 373/2022
2022:DHC:4059-DB
tax appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals against ITAT's grant of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act to Petrotech, adhering to its prior decision pending Supreme Court's final adjudication.

Full Text
Translation output
ITA 372/2022 & ITA 373/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 372/2022
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.
VERSUS
PETROTECH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
ITA 373/2022
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.
VERSUS
PETROTECH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
Date of Decision: 28th September, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1. Present income tax appeals have been filed challenging the common impugned order dated 5th October, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 6778 & 6779/Del./2017 for Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Revenue states that the ITAT has erred in not appreciating that the activities of the Assesseesociety/Respondent-herein are in the nature of trade, commerce or business, and thus the benefit of exemption under Section 11 & Section 12 of the 2022:DHC:4059-DB ITA 372/2022 & ITA 373/2022 Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) cannot be given to the Appellant.

3. Admittedly, the questions of law urged in the present appeals are covered by the decision dated 20th December, 2017 of this Court in assessee’s own case in ITA 1172/2017. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has not accepted the aforesaid decision and has preferred a Special Leave Petition being Civil Appeal No. 9553/2018 against the same.

4. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date.

5. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeals are covered by the decision passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in ITA 1172/2017.

6. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals and the same are dismissed.

7. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeals shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2022