COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI II vs. LEO FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 79 / 2008HC Delhi03 August 20093 pages
For Petitioner: MR.R.D.JOLLY
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no cogent reason from the Assessing Officer for the disallowance and deeming the CIT(A)'s approach reasonable. The High Court considered it a question of fact.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions for disallowance of proportionate expenses related to dividend income not included in taxable income. The CIT(A) reversed most of these additions, allowing only Rs. 2,00,000/- as a fair estimate.

What were the issues?

Whether proportionate expenses attributable to earning dividend income, which is not part of taxable business income, are disallowable as business expenditure. Whether the apportionment of expenses made by the CIT(A) was reasonable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

![](_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg)

ITA No. 79 of 2008

Decided On: 3rd August, 2009.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI II ... Appellant <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/jhi.nlm.nih.gov/">https://doi.org/10.1007/jhi.nlm.nih.gov/</a> Mr. N.P. Sahini with Mr. P.C. Yadav, Advocates.

VERSUS

LEO FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.

... Respondent

through:

Mr. K. Sampath and Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocates.

CORAM :-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

1.

The assessee had filed the return for the Assessment Year 2001-02. While assessing the income, the Assessing Officer made additions on account of disallowance of proportionate expenses pertaining to the earning of the dividend income not included in the taxable income and on account of expenses. The CIT(A) reversed this and deleted the aforesaid additions and restricted the addition to Rs.2,00,000/- on

ITA No.79 of 2008

Page 1 of 9

while doing so, the CIT(A) referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State WarehousingCorporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 242 ITR 450 and inter alia observed as under:

"In computing 'profits and business or profession' when an assessee is carrying on business in various ventures and same among the yield taxable income and the others do not, the question of allowabilities of the expenditure under Section 37 will depend on: (a) fulfillment of requirements of that provision; (b) on the fact whether all the ventures carried on by him constitute one indivisible business or not; if they do, the entire expenditure will be a permissible deduction but if they do not, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure will apply because there will be no nexus between the expenditure attributable to the venture not forming integral part of the business and the expenditure sought to be deducted as the business expenditure of the assessee."

2.

The CIT(A), after considering the facts f the present case including the nature of income and normal course of commercial activities came to the conclusion that an addition of Rs.2,00,000/- would be a fair estimate of the expenditure attributable to the earning of the dividend income on proportionate basis. This finding of the CIT(A) has been upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the following manner:

"On going through the entire material and the facts considered by the learned CIT(A), we find no scope to interfere with his findings and uphold her view inasmuch as the Assessing Officer had not given any cogent reason for allocating the expenditure of Rs.1,14,56,605/- which the learned CIT(A) properly considered. The contention of the Revenue that out of the total expenditure of Rs.1,39,39,381/- debited to the profit & loss account, substantial portion of the expenditure attributable to the earning of dividend income has not been substantiated before us. In our considered opinion the approach adopted by the learned CIT(A) cannot be treated to be unreasonable or unfair. We, therefore, reject the grounds taken by the Revenue and uphold the order of the learned CIT(A)."

- 3. The aforesaid question is a pure question of fact and no substantial question of law arises. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chemical & Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 803/2008 in its order dated 15.07.2008. - 4. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(VALMIKI J. MEHTA) JUDGE

August 03, 2009. Ne

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →