Commissioner Of Income [Tax ][Delhi-Vm]Through : Mr Kamal Sawhney v. S Rei Infra S Te Rtff J^ff

iF-.i( I i* C- $-1&2*IN THE HIGH COI]RT OF DELHI AT DELHI I"l A 689 12012 & lT A [690 ][12012] -t. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME Through : Mr Kamal SawhneY ..... Appellant versus s REI INFRA s t#e r*t#ff J^ff : t#e : sh, S r A dvo c atc w-lili illf [']Rana, Ms Mrinal Mazumdar andMr Abhinav Ashok COIIAM:IION'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DIJRREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER, 2L.02.20L3 " 'I'hese appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [(hereinafter ][referred ][to ][as ][the ]['said ][Act') ][against ][the ][order]dated 23.02.2012 in ITA 617-6I8/Dell20l0 [pertaining ][to ][the ][assesstnent ][years ][2006-]07 and 2007-08, respectively. In both [these ][appeals, ][identical ][issues ][have ][been ][sought]to be raised. One of the issues [pertains ]to [the ][claim ][of ][higher ][depreciation ][by ][the]respondent/ assessee on account of [vehicles ][leased ][out ][by ][it ][to ][its ][customers. ][The]lespondent/ assessee is essentially a [non-banking ][financial ][company ][but ][part ][of ][its]business is leasing of vehicles [etc. ][This ][issue has been remanded ][by ][the ][Tribunal ][to]the Assessing Officer. We may point out that the [assessee ][has ][also ][filed ][cross-appeals]against the impugned order [dated ][23.02.2012 ][in ][respect ][of ][both ][the ][assessment years]2006-07 and 2007-08 and the appeals are numbered [as ]ITA [371120t2 ][and ] 372l2012which are [also ][pending before ][us. ][The ][respondent ][/ ][assessec ][has raised the]issue that the Tribunal ought [not to ][have remanded ][the question ][of ][higher deprbciation]Income Tax Act, 1961 [(hereinafter ][referred ][to ][as ][the ]['said ][Act') ][against ][the ][order]dated 23.02.2012 in ITA 617-6I8/Dell20l0 [pertaining ][to ][the ][assesstnent ][years ][2006-]07 and 2007-08, respectively. In both [these ][appeals, ][identical ][issues ][have ][been ][sought]to be raised. One of the issues [pertains ]to [the ][claim ][of ][higher ][depreciation ][by ][the]respondent/ assessee on account of [vehicles ][leased ][out ][by ][it ][to ][its ][customers. ][The]lespondent/ assessee is essentially a [non-banking ][financial ][company ][but ][part ][of ][its]business is leasing of vehicles [etc. ][This ][issue has been remanded ][by ][the ][Tribunal ][to]the Assessing Officer. We may point out that the [assessee ][has ][also ][filed ][cross-appeals]against the impugned order [dated ][23.02.2012 ][in ][respect ][of ][both ][the ][assessment years]2006-07 and 2007-08 and the appeals are numbered [as ]ITA [371120t2 ][and ] 372l2012which are [also ][pending before ][us. ][The ][respondent ][/ ][assessec ][has raised the]issue that the Tribunal ought [not to ][have remanded ][the question ][of ][higher deprbciation] %\\ L. f to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we feel [that ]it [would ][be appropriate that the ][issue]of higher depreciation be dealt with by us in [the ][assessee's ][said ][appeals.] The second issue that has been raised [by ][the ][revenLte ][in ][this ][appeal pertains ][to]thc interest free loans given to the lXI%subsidiaries of [the ][respondent/ ][assessee. ][The]Assessing Officer had added notional interest [on those ][loans. ][It ][was the ][case ][of ][the]respondent/ assessee that it had reserves and surplus [far ][exceeding ][thc ][extent ][of ][the]loans given to its I00% subsidiaries and that the same was [donc ]only for [its]commercial expediency. This matter has been remiffed by thc Iiibunal [to ][the]Assessing Officer to decide as to whether there was commercial cxpediency [in]advancing those loans to the 100% subsidiaries. We do not see [as ][to why ][w'e ][should]interfere with this direction of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Assessing Officer will [go.]into all the details and will return a finding with regard to the commcrcial expediencyetc. The third issue pertains to Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read withSection i4A of the said Act. This issue has, however, been covered by [the ][decision ]ofthis Court in Maxopp Investment Limited v. CIT: [(2012) ]347 ITR 272 [(Del). ]TheTribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide [this ][issue.in terms]of tlre decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Limited (supra). ['l'herefore, ]onthis aspect also, no interference is called for. In these circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of lawsurviving in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed. fh?eruBADAR DI]RREZiHiUTNU. .T ll. I'4J *-t R.V.EASWAR..I FEBRUARY 21,2013SR