Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-1, Delhi v. Virender Kumar Bhatia - 2017-LL-0918

Citation	2017-LL-0918
Appellant Name	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-1, Delhi
Respondent Name	Virender Kumar Bhatia
Court	HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	18/09/2017
Assessment Year	2008-09
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	unexplained expenditure • advance rent • interest expenditure • disallowance of interest • disallowance of expenditure
Bot Summary:	This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the impugned order dated 20th February 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3409/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. With regards to Question A, pertaining to interest relating to the loan availed from HDFC, the same disallowance was deleted in the earlier AY and confirmed by this Court. This has been noted by the CIT in its order dated 30th March 2013 which has been concurred with by the ITAT in its impugned order. The Court sees no reason to take a different view in the matter and declines to frame a question on the said issue. As regards Questions B and C, the Court finds that a concurrent finding has been rendered on facts by both the CIT as well as ITAT, which has not been shown by the Revenue to be perverse. The Court declines to frame a question on these issues as well.

IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 733/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, DELHI. Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior standing counsel. versus VIRENDER KUMAR BHATIA ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 18.09.2017 1. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) is directed against impugned order dated 20th February 2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 3409/Del/2013 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2008-09. 2. following issues have been urged by Revenue in this appeal: A. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was correct in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,00.39,554/- made by A.O. on account of interest claimed related to HDFC loan, disallowed under Section 37 (1) of Income-tax Act, 1961? B. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was correct in deleting addition of Rs. 21,94,070/- made by A.O. on account of Advance Rent? ITA No. 733/2017 Page 1 of 2 C. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was correct in law in deleting addition of Rs. 8,40,000/- made by A.O. under head Unexplained Expenditure ? 3. With regards to Question A, pertaining to interest relating to loan availed from HDFC, same disallowance was deleted in earlier AY and confirmed by this Court. This has been noted by CIT (A) in its order dated 30th March 2013 which has been concurred with by ITAT in its impugned order. Consequently, Court sees no reason to take different view in matter and declines to frame question on said issue. 4. As regards Questions B and C, Court finds that concurrent finding has been rendered on facts by both CIT (A) as well as ITAT, which has not been shown by Revenue to be perverse. Consequently, Court declines to frame question on these issues as well. 5. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 Rm ITA No. 733/2017 Page 2 of 2 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-1, Delhi v. Virender Kumar Bhatia

Metadata

Judgment