JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30 NEW DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 09.05.2025 + ITA 106/2024 JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr Rohit Jain, Mr Aniket D Aggrawal and Mr Abhisek Singhvi, Advocates. versus ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30 NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr Apoorv Agarwal, Mr Parth Samwal, JSCs, Ms Nupur Sharma, Mr Gaurav Singh, Ms Muskaan Goel, Mr Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant [Assessee] has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], inter alia, impugning an order dated 25.08.2023 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.3990/Del/2016 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2006-07. 2. The Assessee had preferred the said appeal against the order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi–30 [CIT(A)], which in turn was preferred by the Assessee against the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAM ITA 106/2024 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR Signing Date:20.05.2025 12:43:33 assessment order dated 13.03.2015 passed under Section 153A of the Act. 3. One of the grounds urged by the Assessee before the CIT(A) – which was not raised before the Assessing Officer [AO] – regarding the subsidy on account of the sales tax was not entertained by the CIT(A) on the ground that the same was not reflected in the final accounts of Tax Audit Report and the Assessee had not been able to substantiate its claim. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee had filed an appeal before the learned ITAT, which was partly allowed by the impugned order. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the learned ITAT had held that the