COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DLF LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/815/2009HC DelhiDLHC01088792200905 September 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of its order passed on the same day in ITA No. 407/2009, answered the framed question of law in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The reasoning for this decision is not detailed in this excerpt but is stated to be based on the related order. The operative direction is that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided. The principle derived from this decision is that depreciation on the self-occupied portion of a property is allowable, aligning with the Assessee's position.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order dated 15th December 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1468/Del/2008. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 1999-00. The High Court admitted the appeal on 30th November 2011 and framed a specific question of law for consideration. The present order is issued in view of a related order passed on the same day in another appeal (ITA No. 407/2009). The amount in dispute, Rs.31,00,307/-, relates to depreciation claimed by the assessee on the self-occupied portion of DLF Centre.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in allowing depreciation on DLF Centre amounting to Rs.31,00,307/- in respect of its self-occupied portion? (Question of law, concerning the provision for depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961). The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation on the self-occupied portion. The Assessee's contention is not explicitly recorded in this judgment, but it is implied that the Assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were named in this excerpt for either side's arguments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 815/2009

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 22 +

ITA No. 815/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Rahul

Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the Revenue

versus

DLF LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Kavita Jha &, Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

05.09.2017

1.

This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 15th December 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) passed in ITA No.1468/Del/2008 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 1999-00.

2.

While admitting this appeal on 30th November 2011, this Court framed the following question of law for consideration:

“Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in allowing the depreciation on DLF Centre amounting to Rs.31,00,307/- in respect of its self-occupied portion?”

3.

In view of the order passed today in ITA No. 407/2009, the aforesaid question is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and

ITA 815/2009

Page 2 of 2

against the Revenue.

4.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 rd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →