Full Text
Translation output
&2
IN THE HIGH COI]RT OF DELHI AT NEW
I"l A 689 12012 & lT A 690 12012
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-VM
Through : Mr Kamal SawhneY
DELHI
-t. ..... Appellant
IN THE HIGH COI]RT OF DELHI AT NEW
I"l A 689 12012 & lT A 690 12012
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-VM
Through : Mr Kamal SawhneY
DELHI
-t. ..... Appellant
VERSUS
s REI INFRA s r*t#ff J^ff : t#e sh, S r A dvo c atc w-lili illf '
Rana, Ms Mrinal Mazumdar and
Mr Abhinav Ashok
COIIAM:
IION'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DIJRREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
, ORDER
2L.02.20L3
'I'hese appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against the order dated 23.02.2012 in ITA 617-6I8/Dell20l0 pertaining to the assesstnent years 2006-
07 and 2007-08, respectively. In both these appeals, identical issues have been sought to be raised. One of the issues pertains to the claim of higher depreciation by the respondent/ assessee on account of vehicles leased out by it to its customers. The lespondent/ assessee is essentially a non-banking financial company but part of its business is leasing of vehicles etc. This issue has been remanded by the Tribunal to
C- the Assessing Officer. We may point out that the assessee has also filed cross-appeals against the impugned order dated 23.02.2012 in respect of both the assessment years
2006-07 and 2007-08 and the appeals are numbered as ITA 371120t2 and ITA
372l2012which are also pending before us. The respondent / assessec has raised the issue that the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the question of higher deprbciation
$-1
* i
F-. i(
"
I i*
2013:DHC:7844-DB
%\
\ to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we feel that it would be appropriate that the issue of higher depreciation be dealt with by us in the assessee's said appeals.
The second issue that has been raised by the revenLte in this appeal pertains to thc interest free loans given to the lXI%subsidiaries of the respondent/ assessee. The
Assessing Officer had added notional interest on those loans. It was the case of the respondent/ assessee that it had reserves and surplus far exceeding thc extent of the loans given to its I00% subsidiaries and that the same was donc only for its commercial expediency. This matter has been remiffed by thc Iiibunal to the
Assessing Officer to decide as to whether there was commercial cxpediency in advancing those loans to the 100% subsidiaries. We do not see as to why w'e should interfere with this direction of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Assessing Officer will go. into all the details and will return a finding with regard to the commcrcial expediency etc.
The third issue pertains to Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with
Section i4A of the said Act. This issue has, however, been covered by the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT: (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del). The
Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide this issue.in terms of tlre decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Limited (supra). 'l'herefore, on this aspect also, no interference is called for.
In these circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law surviving in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed.
I
)
L. f fh?eru
BADAR DI]RREZiHiUTNU. .T ll. I
4J *-t '
R.V.EASWAR..I
FEBRUARY 21,2013
SR
2013:DHC:7844-DB
Rana, Ms Mrinal Mazumdar and
Mr Abhinav Ashok
COIIAM:
IION'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DIJRREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
, ORDER
2L.02.20L3
'I'hese appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against the order dated 23.02.2012 in ITA 617-6I8/Dell20l0 pertaining to the assesstnent years 2006-
07 and 2007-08, respectively. In both these appeals, identical issues have been sought to be raised. One of the issues pertains to the claim of higher depreciation by the respondent/ assessee on account of vehicles leased out by it to its customers. The lespondent/ assessee is essentially a non-banking financial company but part of its business is leasing of vehicles etc. This issue has been remanded by the Tribunal to
C- the Assessing Officer. We may point out that the assessee has also filed cross-appeals against the impugned order dated 23.02.2012 in respect of both the assessment years
2006-07 and 2007-08 and the appeals are numbered as ITA 371120t2 and ITA
372l2012which are also pending before us. The respondent / assessec has raised the issue that the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the question of higher deprbciation
$-1
* i
F-. i(
"
I i*
2013:DHC:7844-DB
%\
\ to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we feel that it would be appropriate that the issue of higher depreciation be dealt with by us in the assessee's said appeals.
The second issue that has been raised by the revenLte in this appeal pertains to thc interest free loans given to the lXI%subsidiaries of the respondent/ assessee. The
Assessing Officer had added notional interest on those loans. It was the case of the respondent/ assessee that it had reserves and surplus far exceeding thc extent of the loans given to its I00% subsidiaries and that the same was donc only for its commercial expediency. This matter has been remiffed by thc Iiibunal to the
Assessing Officer to decide as to whether there was commercial cxpediency in advancing those loans to the 100% subsidiaries. We do not see as to why w'e should interfere with this direction of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Assessing Officer will go. into all the details and will return a finding with regard to the commcrcial expediency etc.
The third issue pertains to Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with
Section i4A of the said Act. This issue has, however, been covered by the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT: (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Del). The
Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide this issue.in terms of tlre decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Limited (supra). 'l'herefore, on this aspect also, no interference is called for.
In these circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law surviving in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed.
I
)
L. f fh?eru
BADAR DI]RREZiHiUTNU. .T ll. I
4J *-t '
R.V.EASWAR..I
FEBRUARY 21,2013
SR
2013:DHC:7844-DB
JUDGMENT