Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 84/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel . versus . . . LIQUID INVESTMENT and TRADING CO LTD ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Somnath Shukla, Adv. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 14.02.2012 . . . 1. The assessment year in question is 2005-06. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) by its order dated 30.3.2011 has passed an order of remit. . 2. We feel that the order of remit is justified in the present case because the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order dated 5.12.2007, has not reflected and proceeded after ascertaining true and correct facts. There is a factual dispute as to whether the assessee was charged interest @ 10.25% p.a. or 13% p.a. by HDFC Ltd. The Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, had recorded that the assessee had taken loan of Rs.23 crores on which interest was payable @ 13% per annum. However, the CIT (Appeals) has observed that interest @ 10.25% per annum was payable to HDFC Ltd. by the assessee. In the remand report, an ambiguous statement was made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has been asked to verify the effective rate of interest in the absence of details. This is necessary as the assessee has given loan of Rs.14.80 crores @ 10.75% to a group concern. . 3. With regard to the balance amount, there was an investment of Rs.8.2 crores in mutual funds. However, the tribunal has noticed that the units of the mutual funds were redeemed and the realisation was taxed as short term capital gains. However, the Assessing Officer had referred and treated the same as tax free dividend income. There was lack of details and the particulars were not available and therefore it was . difficult to consider, examine and decide about disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT decided on 18.11.2011 has held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 . is not retrospective. Moreover, in the present case the . Assessing Officer had not invoked Rule 8D. Remit was therefore directed by the tribunal. . 4. We see no reason to entertain this appeal under Section 260A. The appeal is dismissed. . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . FEBRUARY 14, 2012 . vld . . . $ 41 . . .