Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 428/2016 &ITA 431/2016
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ashok Manchanda,Advocate.
ITA 428/2016 &ITA 431/2016
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ashok Manchanda,Advocate.
VERSUS
VISHUIMPEX PVT.LTD. Respondent
Through:Mr.Sanat Kapoor,Advocate.
Through:Mr.Sanat Kapoor,Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
09.11.2016 The question oflaw urged, i.e., whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that the penalty under Section 271(D)in the circumstances ofthe case could not have been imposed because it was beyond the time provided under Section 275(1)(c), is now covered by the decision ofthis Court in
Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax-5 v. JKD Capital& Finlease Ltd.(ITA
780/2015,decided on 13.10.2015).
The appeal^, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law;the same are accordingly dismissed.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J NAJMI WAZIRI,J NOVEMBER 09,2016
Ivikasl 2016:DHC:8397-DB
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
09.11.2016 The question oflaw urged, i.e., whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that the penalty under Section 271(D)in the circumstances ofthe case could not have been imposed because it was beyond the time provided under Section 275(1)(c), is now covered by the decision ofthis Court in
Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax-5 v. JKD Capital& Finlease Ltd.(ITA
780/2015,decided on 13.10.2015).
The appeal^, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law;the same are accordingly dismissed.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J NAJMI WAZIRI,J NOVEMBER 09,2016
Ivikasl 2016:DHC:8397-DB
JUDGMENT