PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 6 / 2023HC Delhi09 January 20232 pages
For Petitioner: PUNEET RAI
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had deleted the disallowance. The revenue's counsel conceded that a coordinate bench had already decided the issue in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed a deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. The dispute centered on how this deduction should be calculated, specifically the denominator to be used.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct method of calculating the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(viii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 4 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 6/2023

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

Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

09.01.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 762/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM APPL. 763/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal] 2. Having regard to the period of delay in filing the appeal, which, according to the appellant/revenueis 32 days, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 6/2023 4. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] dated 30.06.2022. The impugned order concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

ITA 6/2023

page 1 of 2 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 27/03/2026 at 13:12:03

4.1 Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, “CIT(A)”], as well as the Tribunal, have deleted the disallowance ordered by the Assessing Officer (AO) claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]. The disallowance was quantified at Rs.5,12,13,197/-. 4.2 The point at issue was as to how deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had to be calculated. 4.3 According to the AO, the deduction had to be calculated by taking into account the total receipts as the denominator, whereas, according to the respondent/assessee, it had to be total interest income. 5. It is not in dispute that this very issue has been decided in favour of the respondent/assessee. As a matter of fact, Mr Puneet Rai, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, has fairly placed before us a recent order of the coordinate bench passed in ITA 307/2022, dated 06.09.2022, titled PCIT, Delhi-7 v M/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the appellant/revenue is closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

JANUARY 9, 2023 / tr

Click here to check corrigendum, if any ITA 6/2023

page 2 of 2

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 27/03/2026 at 13:12:03

More judgments on Section 36(1)(viii)

All 364 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →