Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 (Osd v. Pillazio Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd
High Court
25 Jan 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 (Osd v. Pillazio Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd
Date of order
25 Jan 2019
Assessment year(s)
2012-13
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 (Osd v. Pillazio Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 60/2019
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 (OSD)
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Asheesh Jain, Advs.
versus
PILLAZIO HOTELS & RESORTS (P) LTD.,
Through
..... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R% 25.01.2019
The Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A is on the issue of capitalization of interest on loans. The assessee declared loss to the tune of `6,47,86,042/- for AY 2012-13. The AO noticed that the assessee claimed that the hotel business started on 18.10.2011 and according to him, the business had not become operational since capital work was still in progress. Consequently, he wished to treat the entire amount of interest towards capital. The disallowance on that account was to the tune of `2,40,68,091/- which the AO, directed to be shown in the capital side. The CIT (A) and ITAT both allowed the assessee’s appeal after noticing that even though the work was in progress and had not been completed, the assessee had in fact
commenced business to the extent, their resort was ready on 18.10.2011.
The Court is of the opinion that given the concurrent finding of facts of the lower appellate authorities, independent evaluation of the facts and circumstances by this Court is not warranted. No substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
JANUARY 25, 2019/akv
PRATEEK JALAN, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.