Full Text
Translation output
; $~l6<fe 18 •
* IN TttEjilGH GbtJRt OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ :ITA 225/2017
THE PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX-4 Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia with Mr. Gaurav
Khetarpal &Mr. Puneet Rai, Advs.
* IN TttEjilGH GbtJRt OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ :ITA 225/2017
THE PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX-4 Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia with Mr. Gaurav
Khetarpal &Mr. Puneet Rai, Advs.
VERSUS
GH MONEY HNANCIAL SHRVlCIiS PVT.LTD. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. for
+ ITA 433/2017 triePRlKtCIPALCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX,DELHI-2
^....Appellant .
Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing
Counsel for Income Tax Deptt.
Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. for
+ ITA 433/2017 triePRlKtCIPALCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX,DELHI-2
^....Appellant .
Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing
Counsel for Income Tax Deptt.
VERSUS
. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICE PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR/JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
01.11.2017
The question of law urged by the Revenue is with respect to the treatment ofloss on sale ofloan portfolio, which was not accepted as falling in the capital stream but treated as income. The assessee, anon-banking financial company, had relied upon Section 36(2)(i) which reads as follows: lTA Nos:225/2017 &433/2017 . .. . „ , Page I
2017:DHC:8953-DB
^^^^^of,thefollowmgprovisionsshallapply.
'"f deduction Ml be allowed unless such deh, been taken into account ,n
€ the assessee Ofthepreviousyear in
'^^reofZntZiit th„ ^^''^ents money lent in theordina^courseofthe business ofbankingor,mn^ te"d,ngwhich iscarriedon bytheJsessee.^ ^ :
„ Courtnotices thattheassessee relied uponan identicaltreatment ofas.™lar^ountforthepreviousyeari.e. A.Y. 2004-05andtheorderoC theTnbunal. "
Having regard to the above, the Court is of the opinion that no substantialquestionoflawarises. Theappealsarethereforedismissed. •
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
/ I
NOVEMBER 01,2017 S^JEEVSACHDEVA,J kks •
ITA AAoc?7^/;/i,-7^
Page 2
2017:DHC:8953-DB
HON'BLE MR/JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
01.11.2017
The question of law urged by the Revenue is with respect to the treatment ofloss on sale ofloan portfolio, which was not accepted as falling in the capital stream but treated as income. The assessee, anon-banking financial company, had relied upon Section 36(2)(i) which reads as follows: lTA Nos:225/2017 &433/2017 . .. . „ , Page I
2017:DHC:8953-DB
^^^^^of,thefollowmgprovisionsshallapply.
'"f deduction Ml be allowed unless such deh, been taken into account ,n
€ the assessee Ofthepreviousyear in
'^^reofZntZiit th„ ^^''^ents money lent in theordina^courseofthe business ofbankingor,mn^ te"d,ngwhich iscarriedon bytheJsessee.^ ^ :
„ Courtnotices thattheassessee relied uponan identicaltreatment ofas.™lar^ountforthepreviousyeari.e. A.Y. 2004-05andtheorderoC theTnbunal. "
Having regard to the above, the Court is of the opinion that no substantialquestionoflawarises. Theappealsarethereforedismissed. •
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
/ I
NOVEMBER 01,2017 S^JEEVSACHDEVA,J kks •
ITA AAoc?7^/;/i,-7^
Page 2
2017:DHC:8953-DB
JUDGMENT