PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (EARSTWHILE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/390/2024HC DelhiDLHC01043700202426 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that an identical question concerning disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had previously been considered in ITA 521/2023. In that prior case, the Court had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2018) 15 SCC 523] and had answered the question in favour of the assessee. Following this precedent, the High Court found no reason to deviate and consequently dismissed the present appeal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi (Revenue) against an order concerning Punjab National Bank (erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges a decision related to a disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history involves the Revenue filing this appeal before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court heard the counsel for the Revenue and noted that an identical issue was decided in a previous appeal, ITA 521/2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee in this appeal. However, it refers to a prior decision in ITA 521/2023 where the question was answered in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, presented the appeal. The judgment notes that the Revenue's counsel argued in support of the appeal. The specific arguments of the Revenue are not detailed, but the appeal is based on the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(vii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 390/2024

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ashvini Kaumar and Mr. Rishab Nangia, Advocates.

versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (EARSTWHILE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE)

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Mr. Rajat Navet, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R %

26.07.2024 CM APPL. 42012/2024 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

This application stands disposed of. ITA 390/2024

Having heard Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal, we note that an identical question pertaining to disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came up for consideration inter partes in ITA 521/2023. The Court in that appeal took note of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2018) 15 SCC 523] to hold and answer the question in favour of the assessee. 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 03/07/2025 at 00:22:23

Following the aforesaid decision, we dismiss the instant appeal.

YASHWANT VARMA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JULY 26, 2024/neha 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 03/07/2025 at 00:22:23

More judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →