Maxopp Investment Ltd v. Cit, New Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 1029 of 2018 ==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2VersusGUJARAT LEASE FINANCING LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 13/08/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has filed this appeal raising following questions for our consideration. “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing the bad debt claim of the assessee ignoring the fact that the debts in question were not trading debts of the assessee as required u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act ? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored the fact that the assessee has debited the principal amount which could never appear as a debt on account of trade? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in treating the hire purchases as stock in trade ? (D) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to consider that the assessee is not a banking entity where bill discounting can be accepted to be trading receipt and the resultant debt be treated as bad trading debt ? (E) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.925304/- on leased assets? (F) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2084028 under section 14A of the Act? (G) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, New Delhi, which has applied the “theory of apportionment” of expenses (including interest)?” 2. Questions (A) to (D) have been considered by us in a separate order passed by us today in Tax Appeal No.1024 of 2018. Questions (E) and (F) have been considered in Tax Appeal No.1023 of 2018 and question (G) in Tax Appeal No.1022 of 2018. All these questions are declined. Without separately recording reasons, this appeal is also dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) K.K. SAIYED (B.N. KARIA, J)