Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt.ltd
High Court
01 Nov 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt.ltd
Date of order
01 Nov 2017
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Appeal is therefore dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 226/2017
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia with Mr. Gaurav Khetarpal & Mr. Puneet Rai, Advs.
versus
GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R
%
01.11.2017
The question of law which the Revenue urges in its appeal is with respect to the treatment of Non-Performing Assets (NPA).
It is pointed out by the assessee, which is represented on advance notice, that for the years i.e. A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Court had rejected the Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A (ITA No.67-68 and 73/2017) while following the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 440 (Delhi). ITAT had applied the principle in Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (supra). Following the decision of this Court in ITA No.67-68 and 73/2017, it is held that no substantial question of law arises.
Appeal is therefore dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NOVEMBER 01, 2017/kks
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, 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.
EaseValue