PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S AVANTHA REALTY LTD.

$~30 & 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 240/2023 + ITA 241/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2

..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Easha Kadian and Ms Hemlata Rawat, Advs.

versus

M/S AVANTHA REALTY LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Upvan Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

25.04.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.20273/2023 in ITA 240/2023 CM Appl.20275/2023 in ITA 241/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM Appl.20274/2023 in ITA 240/2023 CM Appl.20276/2023 in ITA 241/2023 2. These are the applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 3. Mr Upvan Gupta, who appears on behalf of the non- applicant/respondent/assessee, does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. The delay is condoned. 5. The applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA nos.240/2023 & 241/2023

1/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:42

ITA 240/2023 ITA 241/2023 6. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 [ITA No.240/2023] and AY 2013-14 [ITA No.241/2023]. 6.1 The appeals are directed against a common order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 7. We have heard Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, and Mr Upvan Gupta, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee. 8. The following questions of law have been proposed by the appellant/revenue: “A. Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred on facts and in law in considering the scheme of Arrangement and demerger between SILT and assessee company to be in the nature of transfer of property in the nature of house property referred to in Part C of Chapter IV of Income Tax Act, 1961,whereas as per the above mentioned scheme, the business undertaking in the form of real estate division of BILT was transferred with all the liabilities and obligations pertaining to employees of Janpath Investment & Holding Limited (Subsequently renames as M/s Avantha Realty Ltd)? B. Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred on facts and in law in upholding the decision of CIT (A) for allowing that interest on unpaid amount to the seller is akin to interest on borrowed capital and the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act? C. Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred on facts and in law for considering case of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. R.P Goenka & J.P Goenka for allowing the claim of assessee. However, the said cited case law does not support the claim of the assessee as in the cited case law the petitioner purchased house from Jaipur Investment Co. Ltd for a consideration of Rs.11,50,000/. The petitioner borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from Badridas Keshav Prasad, a firm of his family and paid part of the consideration . In the case of assessee no fund was borrowed for the acquisition of said property and interest was paid for the remaining consideration that was due on assessee for the acquisition of the said property? D. Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred on facts and in law in restricting the ITA nos.240/2023 & 241/2023