THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S HCL COMNET LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/344/2017HC DelhiDLHC01017093201703 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the CIT(A) and ITAT concurrently found that the interest expenditure was not related to exempt income and this finding was not controverted by the Revenue, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The addition pertained to interest expenditure claimed to be related to exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether interest expenditure incurred by the assessee was related to earning exempt income, and if the concurrent findings of the lower authorities on this issue warrant interference by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 344/2017

Page 1 of 3

$~51. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 344/2017

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate

Versus

HCL COMNET LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate with Ms.Roopali Gupta, Adv.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

03.05.2017 C.M. No. 16845/2017(Delay in re-filing) 1. For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in re-filing is condoned and the application is disposed of. C.M.No. 16846/2017 (Exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No. 344/2017 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) against an order dated 19th August, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 6142/Del/2012 and ITA No. 5898/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 2009-10. The issue urged by the Revenue relates to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,06,61,713/- made by the Assessing Officer („AO‟) under Section 14A read

ITA 344/2017

Page 2 of 3

with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

4.

It is to be noted at the outset that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had accepted the case of the Assessee that the interest expenditure was not co-related to the exempt income. The concurrent finding of the ITAT in this regard in the impugned order reads as under:-

“31.1 From this he (CIT(A)) observed that the interest of Rs. 274.68 lakhs was paid for the loans taken from Cisco Systems and HSBC for utilization of the same for NSE project and for business purposes. The assessee also paid interest of Rs.3.20 lakhs for vehicles taken on lease. Apart from the above, the assessee had paid Rs. 147.47 lakhs on account of bank charges during the period. He pointed out that none of the financial charges were related to the investment made by the assessee and investment in dividend yielding assets was made out of assessee‟s own funds or funds borrowed from the holding company and no part of interest expenditure could be held as incurred for earning exempt income. This specific finding of ld. CIT(A) has not at all been controverted by the department by bringing any evidence on record and, therefore, we confirm the findings of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.79,18,827/- made on account of interest expenditure relatable to earning of exempt income by AO. In the result this ground is dismissed.”

5.

Since the finding that even the interest expenditure beyond Rs. 274.68 lakhs was made from either the own funds or the borrowing from the holding company and this fact and finding was not controverted by the Revenue, the Court does not find any substantial question of law arising from the said finding.

ITA 344/2017

Page 3 of 3

6.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 03, 2017 ‘anb’

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →