COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD
[Citation -2015-LL-1001-17]

Citation 2015-LL-1001-17
Appellant Name COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU
Respondent Name POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 01/10/2015
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue • substantial question of law
Bot Summary: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 28 th November 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2598/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The question of law before the ITAT was whether the order dated 30th March 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was justified in law. The CIT by the said order concluded that the order dated 29 th September 2009 passed by the Assessing Officer allowing deduction under ITA No. 395/2015 Page 1 of 3 Sections 36(1) and 36 of the Act in favour of the Assessee was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ITAT in the impugned order noticed on the question whether the total income for the purposes of Section 36(1) should be computed after allowing the deduction under Section 36 of the Act, there were at least two possible views as reflected in the orders of the ITAT Delhi in Rural Electrification Corpn. That both deductions under Section 36 and 36 are independent of each other, give rise to two further possible interpretations. The Court is satisfied that in terms of the law explained by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) as followed by ITA No. 395/2015 Page 2 of 3 this Court in its recent decision dated 5th July 2010 in ITA No. 1376 of 2009 the view taken by the AO in the present appeal is a possible one and there was no occasion for the CIT to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The impugned order of the ITAT therefore does not suffer from any legal infirmity.


$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6 + ITA 395/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel and Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advocates. versus POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. .... Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 01.10.2015 1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against order dated 28 th November 2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 2598/Del/2012 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2007-08. 2. question of law before ITAT was whether order dated 30th March 2012 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax ( CIT ) under Section 263 was justified in law. 3. CIT by said order concluded that order dated 29 th September 2009 passed by Assessing Officer ( AO ) allowing deduction under ITA No. 395/2015 Page 1 of 3 Sections 36(1) (viia) (c) and 36 (1) (viii) of Act in favour of Assessee was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 4. ITAT in impugned order noticed on question whether total income for purposes of Section 36(1) (viia) (c) should be computed after allowing deduction under Section 36 (viii) of Act, there were at least two possible views as reflected in orders of ITAT Delhi in Rural Electrification Corpn. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 34 SOT 159 Delhi and of Chennai Bench of ITAT in Infrastructure Development Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (order dated 29th March 2007 in ITA No. 747,748/Mds/2005). 5. During course of hearing today it transpired to Court that, independent of aforementioned two decisions, stand of Revenue as set out in its memorandum of appeal, and that of Assessee before us, viz., that both deductions [under Section 36 (1) (viia) (c) and 36 (viii)] are independent of each other, give rise to two further possible interpretations. 6. Court is satisfied that in terms of law explained by Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) as followed by ITA No. 395/2015 Page 2 of 3 this Court in its recent decision dated 5th July 2010 in ITA No. 1376 of 2009 (CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.) view taken by AO in present appeal is possible one and there was no occasion for CIT to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of Act. impugned order of ITAT therefore does not suffer from any legal infirmity. No substantial question of law arises. 7. appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 01, 2015 mg ITA No. 395/2015 Page 3 of 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD
Report Error