ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV<\/p>\n
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A<\/p>\n
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS<\/p>\n
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2755\/2019
\n(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-02-2018
\nin ITA No. 197\/2018 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)<\/p>\n
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18 Petitioner(s)<\/p>\n
VERSUS<\/p>\n
M\/S OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Respondent(s)<\/p>\n
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.18849\/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)<\/p>\n
Date : 08-02-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.<\/p>\n
CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
\nHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA<\/p>\n
For Petitioner(s)<\/p>\n
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
\nMs. Meenakshi Grover, Adv.
\nMs. Seema Bengani, Adv.
\nPraveen, Adv.
\nMr. Anas Zaidi, Adv.
\nMr. T.C. Jirwa, Adv.
\nMrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR<\/p>\n
For Respondent(s)<\/p>\n
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following<\/p>\n
O R D E R<\/p>\n
Delay condoned.<\/p>\n
In view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Mumbai vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd<\/a>. through its Manager [401 ITR 445 (SC)] (2018) 3 SCC 253, we see no reason to entertain this special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.<\/p>\n (MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)<\/p>\n COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER<\/p>\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 ….. Appellant<\/p>\n Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing versus<\/p>\n OIL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BOARD ….. Respondent<\/p>\n Through:<\/p>\n CORAM:<\/p>\n HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT O R D E R<\/p>\n % 16.02.2018<\/p>\n The Revenue\u2019s appeal challenges an order of the Income Tax The Assessing Officer (AO) and later the CIT (A) made the The ITAT relied upon the ruling of this Court in CheminvestLimited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI<\/a>, (2015) 378 ITR 33 The appeal is therefore dismissed.<\/p>\n S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J In view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Mumbai vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd<\/a>. through its Manager [401 ITR 445 (SC)] (2018) 3 SCC 253, we see no reason to entertain this special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
\n
\n+ ITA 197\/2018<\/p>\n
\nCounsel.<\/p>\n
\nHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA<\/p>\n
\nAppellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the disallowance of
\n`1,62,49,000\/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
\n(hereinafter referred to as \u2018the Act\u2019).<\/p>\n
\ndisallowance by taking into account only the investment patterns of
\nthe assessee for the concerned assessment.<\/p>\n
\nwhich ruled in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance under
\nSection 14-A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. Since the
\ndecision in Cheminvest Limited (supra) was followed, there is no
\nsubstantial question of law that requires consideration.<\/p>\n
\nA. K. CHAWLA, J
\nFEBRUARY 16, 2018<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"