TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce following the decision of Cheminvest Limited [ 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for the reason that the assessee did not receive any exempt income during the assessment year under consideration HELD THAT:- We observe that recently in the case of PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.[ 2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT] following the decision of Sedco Forex International Drill. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PRASAD, J. M. : 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9 [hereinafter referred to as CIT (Appeals)] New Delhi, dated 30.09.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The Revenue In its appeal has raised the following ground of appeal:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave application was held to be applicable only prospectively. Ld. Counsel submits that this decision was followed in the case of PCIT Vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. In ITA. No. 293/2022 dated 31.08.2022. 4. The ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. We observe that the ld. CIT (Appeals) delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e retrospective. Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in PCIT Vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (supra). Thus, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. Ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. 6. In the result, appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
