The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. GE Capital Services Inida
[Citation -2017-LL-0823-2]

Citation 2017-LL-0823-2
Appellant Name The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4
Respondent Name GE Capital Services Inida
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/08/2017
Assessment Year 2001-02
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags interest paid • exempted income • dividend income • ad hoc disallowance • disallowance of interest • disallowance of expenditure • management expenses • administrative expenditure
Bot Summary: The short question sought to be urged in the present appeal by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in confirming the order of the Commissioner Income Tax deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A in the sum of Rs.12,65,44,530/- on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilized for making investment in shares yielding exempt income. The further ground urged is that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of ITA 468/2017 Page 1 of 2 Rs.25 lacs made by the AO on account of purported management/administrative expenses and other costs attributed towards earning dividend income. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the ITAT reveals that both the disallowances were made by the AO on ad hoc basis. The ITAT relied on the order passed earlier by a coordinate Bench of the ITAT for AY 2000- 2001 deciding an identical issue in favour of the Assessee. The ITAT noted that there was no change in the facts and circumstances or the legal position requiring a different view to be taken. Having heard Mr Puneet Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and having perused the order passed by the ITAT, the Court is not inclined to frame any question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2 ITA 468/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Standing Counsel versus GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Amaya Pant, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 23.08.2017 1.This is appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) directed by Revenue against order dated 6th June, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA Nos.2808/Del./2007 and 2898/Del./2007 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2001 2002. 2. short question sought to be urged in present appeal by Revenue is whether ITAT erred in confirming order of Commissioner Income Tax (Appellate) deleting addition made by Assessing Officer ( AO ) under Section 14A in sum of Rs.12,65,44,530/- on account of interest paid on borrowed funds utilized for making investment in shares yielding exempt income. 3. further ground urged is that ITAT erred in deleting addition of ITA 468/2017 Page 1 of 2 Rs.25 lacs made by AO on account of purported management/administrative expenses and other costs attributed towards earning dividend income. 4. perusal of impugned order passed by ITAT reveals that both disallowances were made by AO on ad hoc basis. ITAT relied on order passed earlier by coordinate Bench of ITAT for AY 2000- 2001 deciding identical issue in favour of Assessee. ITAT noted that there was no change in facts and circumstances or legal position requiring different view to be taken. 5. In any event, Court finds that disallowances were made by AO on ad hoc basis. As explained by this Court in CIT v. State Trading Corporation Ltd. [decision dated 17th August, 2012 in ITA No.344/2012], even prior to Rule 8D, disallowance under Section 14 of Act had to be on some reasonable basis. 6. Having heard Mr Puneet Rai, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue and having perused order passed by ITAT, Court is not inclined to frame any question of law. appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in circumstances, with no orders as to costs. S.MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. AUGUST 23, 2017 rd ITA 468/2017 Page 2 of 2 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. GE Capital Services Inida
Report Error