PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. WGF FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 184 / 2022HC Delhi05 July 20222 pages
For Petitioner: PUNEET RAI
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The ITAT allowed the amount as a business loss. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in considering the transaction as prudent and failed to appreciate the lack of prudent recovery efforts and the conflicting treatment of the amount as capital receipt by one party and revenue loss by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a business loss of Rs. 27,76,92,000/- under Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue argued that this was a colourable device, not a prudent act, as the third party involved vanished after discharging its guarantee obligation.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in allowing a large sum as business loss when the transaction was allegedly a colourable device and lacked prudent recovery efforts. Whether the conflicting tax treatment of the amount by related parties led to tax avoidance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(2)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 184/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel with Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Advocate. versus WGF FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 05.07.2022 Present income tax appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 10th March, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 8218/Del./2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT erred in allowing an amount of Rs.27,76,92,000/- as business loss under Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He also states that ITAT erred in considering the transaction as prudent act instead of a colourable device despite the fact that the third party – Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. (IBFSL) had simply vanished soon after the guarantee obligation was discharged by the assessee. He submits that ITAT failed to appreciate that during the Financial Year 2014-15, Carissa Investment Private Ltd. [CIPL] had shown income of Rs.15 crores through 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 13:13:52

miscellaneous source and out of it, CIPL paid donation of Rs. 10 crores, instead of fulfilling its obligation towards the assessee. Further, the assessee company has not shown any prudent efforts made by it for recovery of amount from CIPL. He states that ITAT has failed to consider that CIPL has not shown any revenue in its Profit & Loss Account on this amount being written off, thus claiming it as a capital receipt, yet the assessee in its hands has claimed the same as a revenue loss. This adjustment has lead to tax avoidance in both hands. Issue notice to the respondent by all modes of service including dasti, returnable for 15th November, 2022. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 5, 2022 KA 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 13:13:52

More judgments on Section 36(2)(i)

All 86 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(2)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →