Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 8 v. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd

Delhi High Court · 26 Mar 2019 · 2019:DHC:7906-DB
S. Ravindra Bhat; Prateek Jalan
W.P.(C) 2914/2019
2019:DHC:7906-DB
tax petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's petitions, holding that the ITAT cannot extend interim orders beyond 365 days as prescribed under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Full Text
Translation output
\ $-62to 64 HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.fCI2914/2019.C M.APPL.13511/2D19
—W.P.(CI2915/2019.C.M.APPL.13513/2019
W.P.tCl2917/2019.C.M.APPL.13516/2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX - 8
Petitioner
VERSUS
M/S.SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICSPVT.LTD Respondent
Through : Sh. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel.
Sh. SachitJolly and Sh. Arush Bhatia, Advocates, forresponderit,in Item Nos.62to64.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRATEEK JALAN
26.03.2019 The Revenue argues in these petitions that the ITAT could not have extended the interim order beyond the period of 365 days, prescribed by Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This issue is now covered by thejudgment ofthis Court in Pepsico Foods
Pvt. Ltd. V. ylC/r 376 ITR 87. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications. , S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J
PRATEEK JALAN,J MARCH 26,2019/ajk 2019:DHC:7906-DB
JUDGMENT