PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2, vs. M/S. BHARAT HOTELS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/50/2018HC DelhiDLHC01451814201718 January 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the question of law raised by the Revenue was identical to a question of law that had arisen in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had previously addressed this identical question in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat Hotels, [2016] 65 taxmann.com 39 (Del). In that prior decision, the Court had answered the question in favour of the assessee. Consequently, following the precedent set by the Division Bench, the High Court found that the Revenue's appeal had to fail. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The specific reasoning of the Division Bench in the cited case is not detailed in this judgment, but it is implied that it supported the assessee's claim of ownership and entitlement to depreciation.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2011-2012. The dispute pertains to the assessee, M/s. Bharat Hotels Ltd., claiming depreciation on a hotel building. The ITAT had allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation, holding that the assessee was the owner of the building and entitled to the claim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in allowing the claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by holding that the assessee is the owner of the Hotel Building and entitled to claim depreciation in relation to the Building in the circumstances of the case? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which was upheld, implies the assessee argued for its ownership of the hotel building and its entitlement to depreciation. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in allowing the claim of depreciation by holding the assessee as the owner of the hotel building.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.50/2018 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 50/2018

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advs.

versus

M/S. BHARAT HOTELS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

18.01.2018

CM No.1835/2018 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA No.50/2018 1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 08.06.2017 in ITA No. 4771/Del/2014 passed by the Ld. ITAT, Delhi Bench for the assessment year 2011-2012 whereby the Ld. Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 2. In this appeal, the question of law sought to be urged by the Revenue is:

ITA No.50/2018 Page 2 of 2

“Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in allowing the claim of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act by holding that the assessee is owner of the Hotel Building and entitled to claim depreciation in relation to the Building in the circumstances of the case?”

3.

This Court notices that an identical question of law had arisen in the assessee’s own case for previous assessment years, which was addressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat Hotels, [2016] 65 taxmann.com 39 (Del), and the same was answered in favour of the assessee. 4. In the circumstances therefore, the Revenue’s appeal has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J JANUARY 18, 2018

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →