DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI INDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the deduction for interest paid on loans used for construction and repayment of old construction loans is allowable. The issue was already decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT and confirmed by the Delhi High Court.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction for interest paid on loans used for constructing a building and repaying old loans. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, arguing the loans were taken to repay old loans. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on previous ITAT and High Court decisions in the assessee's own case.
What were the issues?
Whether interest paid on loans taken for construction of a building, including repayment of prior construction loans, is allowable as a deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 11/1/2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A) XXV, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) XXV, New Delhi has erred in allowing deduction of Rs.20,05,072/- u/s 24 of IT Act on the amount which was not utilized for construction/re-payment of earlier loan.
3. The assessee constructed a building at A-44, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi with the borrowed funds. During the year, the assessee offered the rental income of Rs.2,99,47,317/- and claimed the interest payment of Rs.20,05,072/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment of interest relying on some earlier year orders on the ground that the interest has been paid on the loans which were taken to repay the old loans.
The assessee filed appeal against the said assessment order and it was submitted before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer was not justified to make the disallowance of the interest which were basically paid for the loans which were utilized for the construction of the building from which rental income is received. It was further submitted before the CIT(A) that earlier the loan of Rs.4.33 crores was taken from Canara Bank for the construction of the building and later on another loan of Rs.4 crores was taken from ING Vysya Bank for the construction of the building and also for the repayment of the old loans. Subsequently, another loan of Rs.5.5 crores was taken from SBI for the purpose of construction of the building and also for the repayment of the old loans. Later on another loan of Rs.3.25 crores was received from the Axis Bank during the A. Y 2008-09 to repay the SBI loan of Rs.2,26,67,234/- and the assessee claimed the proportionate interest of Rs.16,35,065/- as a deduction u/s 24 (b). The assessee also submitted that the assessee paid the interest payment of Rs.3,70,000/- to SBI and as such the total deduction of Rs.20,05,065/- was claimed which is allowable as per law. The assessee submitted that similar issue was also raised by the A.O in the earlier years and deduction was allowed to the assessee for all the years by the ITAT, Delhi vide order dated 31/10/2011 in & 1465, 1534 & 1535/Del/2010 as per Para-23 of the order and as such the appeal of the assessee was covered by the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case.
Based on the order of the ITAT, the CIT(A) held that the A.O was not justified to deny the deduction of the interest payment on the loans as the loans were taken for the construction of the building and also for the re- payment of the old loans which were taken for the construction of the building and as such the deduction of interest is allowable u/s 24B. The said ITAT’s order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 29/11/2012.
The DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the appeal be allowed.
The AR submitted that the said Tribunal’s order in case of 1465, 1534 & 1535/Delhi/2010 dated 31/10/2011 for the A. Y 2005-06 was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case and the present appeal is also governed by the said orders.
We have perused all the records and proceedings and heard both the parties. We have gone through the orders passed by the ITAT Delhi Benches in assessee’s own case for A. Y 2005-06 as well as the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order dated 29/11/2012 and found that the issue contested herein is decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, New Delhi as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
In result, the appeal is dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 4th of November, 2015.
More judgments on Section 24
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Ashwin Kumar Rath, Pune vs DCIT (Investigation) Circle 12, PuneITA 791/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Radioactive Hospitality LLP, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 55/PAT/2026[2023-24]Status: Heard23 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Maniam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KolkataITSSA 47/KOL/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2016-2017
- Maniam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KolkataITSSA 46/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026