Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 v. Nirma Credit & Capital (P.) Ltd. Reported In [2017] 85 Taxmann.com 72 (Gujarat

C/TAXAP/650/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 650 of 2018 ================================================================ THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4Versus VIKRAM CAPITAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD. ================================================================Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 19/06/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B', Ahmedabad passed in ITA No.257/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals),indeletingthedisallowanceof Rs.1,04,79,689/= under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act and Rules, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal with the proposed question of law :- judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'B', Ahmedabad passed in ITA No.257/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals),indeletingthedisallowanceof Rs.1,04,79,689/= under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act and Rules, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal with the proposed question of law :- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,04,79,689/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act?” 2. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. M.M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the Revenue. behalf of the Revenue. 3. We have considered in detail the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,04,79,689/= under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act and Rules. by the learned Tribunal as well as the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,04,79,689/= under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act and Rules. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the assessee incurred the interest expenditure of Rs.1,47,03,898/= against which the assessee earned a taxable interest income of Rs.1,86,03,752/=. Therefore, learned CIT(A) as well as the learned Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,04,79,689/= made by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act and Rules. The issue involved in the present Appeal is squarely covered against the Revenue in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal incurred the interest expenditure of Rs.1,47,03,898/= against which the assessee earned a taxable interest income of Rs.1,86,03,752/=. Therefore, learned CIT(A) as well as the learned Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,04,79,689/= made by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act and Rules. The issue involved in the present Appeal is squarely covered against the Revenue in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. Nirma Credit & Capital (P.) Ltd. reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com 72 (Gujarat). Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. Nirma Credit & Capital (P.) Ltd. reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com 72 (Gujarat). 5. Under the circumstances, the issue is now not res integra in view of the binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the above and for the aforestated reasons, and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3 (supra), no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal and therefore, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. integra in view of the binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the above and for the aforestated reasons, and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3 (supra), no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal and therefore, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-(M.R. SHAH, J) CAROLINE Sd/-(A.Y. KOGJE, J)