ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/933/2017HC DelhiDLHC01328997201703 November 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. This was based on the concession made by the assessee that the issue regarding the deductibility of amortization of share issue expenses had already been decided against them in previous assessment years in the case of Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA 320 ITR 420). Therefore, following the precedent set by the earlier decision, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's implied decision or to direct a fresh consideration of the matter. The appeal was accordingly dismissed without delving into the merits of the amortization claim itself, as the legal basis for such a claim in this context had already been settled against the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute revolved around the deductibility of amortization of share issue expenses. The assessee contended that the ITAT erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow this deduction, similar to the treatment in assessment year 2003-04. The assessee argued that this specific question was raised before the Tribunal but not addressed. However, it was conceded that the issue had been decided against the assessee in previous assessment years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to permit deduction on account of amortization of share issue expenses, in line with the previous assessment year 2003-04, as per Section 35D of the Act? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT failed to address the question of allowing deduction for amortization of share issue expenses, despite it being pressed. The assessee sought parity with the treatment in assessment year 2003-04. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not present any specific contentions in the judgment. However, it was conceded by the assessee that the question of law had already been answered against the assessee for other previous years in the case of Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA 320 ITR 420).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35D,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 933/2017 ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaur Jain, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda and Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 03.11.2017 The only question of law sought to be urged by the assessee under Section 260A is whether the ITAT erred in not directing the assessing officer to permit deduction on account of amortization of share issue Section 35D of the Act, in line with the previous assessment year 2003-04. The assessee urged that this question was pressed but was not dealt with by the Tribunal. At the same time, it was conceded that the question now stands answered against the assessee for other previous years 1998-99 in ITA 320 ITR 420 ‘Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax’. Following the said decision, we find that ‘no question of law arises’. The appeal is therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 03, 2017/‘rs’

More judgments on Section 35D

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35D →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →