COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. INDUSTRIAL FINANCE COPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 373 / 2006HC Delhi06 October 20061 pages
For Petitioner: P.L.BANSAL
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed questions of law. The judgment does not contain the Tribunal's decision or the High Court's final determination on the merits of the appeal. The operative part of the order only pertains to the admission of the appeal and the formulation of the questions of law. Therefore, no findings on the issues, reasoning, or ratio decidendi are present in this excerpt. The High Court has not decided the appeal itself but has admitted it for further hearing on the framed questions of law.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) is the appellant and Industrial Finance Corporation is the respondent assessee. The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2001-02. The order under challenge is from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The dispute revolves around the allowability of interest amounting to Rs. 9.43 crores paid by the assessee on borrowings for the construction of an office building. The ITAT had allowed this interest as an expenditure. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed specific questions of law for determination.

What were the issues?

The High Court framed two questions of law for determination: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in allowing the interest of Rs. 9.43 crores paid by the assessee on borrowings made for construction of office building holding the same as allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether interest paid by the assessee was to be capitalized in view of provisions of Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) or to be allowed as expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act? The appellant (Revenue) contended that the interest should not be allowed as expenditure and potentially should be capitalized. The respondent (Assessee) argued that the interest paid on borrowings for construction of the office building is an allowable expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from either side beyond the framing of the questions and the general nature of the dispute.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 43(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 373/2006 . . . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through Ms.Prem Lata Bansal,Advocate . versus . . INDUSTRIAL FINANCE COPORATION ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ajay Vohra, Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR . . O R D E R 06.10.2006 . C.A.3877/2006 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. . ITA No.373/2006 Admit. The following questions of law are formulated for determination in the present Appeal: (a)Whether the ITAT was correct in law in allowing the interest of Rs.9.43 crores paid by the assessee on borrowings made for construction of office building holding the same as allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act? . ITA No.373/2006 Page 1 of 2 (b) Whether interest paid by the assessee was to be capitalized in view of provisions of Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) or to be allowed as expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act? In the facts of this case filing of paper books is dispensed with. The Registry shall make a similar note in the connected ITA No.695/2006. List along with ITA No.695/2006. . . VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J . . . S. MURALIDHAR, J OCTOBER 06, 2006 NJ . ITA No.373/2006 Page 2 of 2 23

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →