THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. NIKON FINLEASE PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1069/2018HC DelhiDLHC01313105201818 January 2019Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no infirmity in the view of the ITAT. Regarding the second question concerning the interpretation of Rule 8D, the High Court noted that the ITAT's presumption was in consonance with the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505). For the first question regarding the valuation of stock, the High Court observed that the CIT(A), followed by the ITAT, had consistently applied the method of closing stocks for both quoted and unquoted shares. Therefore, the High Court found no infirmity in the approach of the ITAT that would warrant interference. No question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 (appellant/revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Nikon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision regarding disallowances made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning the valuation of shares and the interpretation of Rule 8D. The ITAT had restricted the disallowances. The High Court noted that the CIT(A) had followed previous orders regarding the valuation method for both quoted and unquoted shares.

What were the issues?

1. Did the ITAT err in restricting the disallowances under Section 14A with respect to the valuation of shares? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning Section 14A). 2. So far as the interpretation of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, applied for the purpose of working of the disallowance under Section 14A(ii), is concerned, did the ITAT err in its presumption? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning Section 14A and Rule 8D). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in restricting the disallowances under Section 14A concerning the valuation of shares and in its interpretation of Rule 8D. The revenue's arguments are implicitly addressed by the High Court's findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1069/2018 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia & Mr.Puneet Rai, Advocates versus NIKON FINLEASE PVT. LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Amol Sinha, Mr.Ashvini Kumar, Mr.Rahul Kochar & Mr.Shlok Chandra, Advocates CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R %

18.01.

2019

1.

Following two questions of law arise under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for consideration: (i) Did ITAT erre in restricting the disallowances under Section 14A with respect to the valuation of shares? (ii) method of closing stocks in respect of both quoted and un-quoted shares consistently. As a result, there is no infirmity in the approach of the ITAT calling for interference.

3.

No question of law arises. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 18, 2019 ‘hkaur’

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →