Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 v. Escort Heart Institute & Researchcentre Ltd

$~38 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 1094/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3..... Appellant Through :Mr Sanjay Kumar and Mr RahulChaudhary, Advocates. versus ESCORT HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCHCENTRE LTD. ..... RespondentThrough :Mr Simran Mehta, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAO R D E R %04.12.2017 1.The Revenue urges two questions in this Appeal – forAssessment Year 2008-2009, under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961. 2.The first question relates to disallowance of Rs.3,07,63,223/-on account of interest payment made to the extent of loan advance tothe Assessee sister concern, under Section 36(1)(iii) and the secondquestion relates to depreciation to the tune of Rs.1,00,30,472/-towards assets received by the Assessee without consideration. 3.The Assessee provides Health Care Services; its return for theconcerned Assessment Year were scrutinized by the Assessing Officeron the ground that the interest free advance given to the sister concernbe disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii). 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief inthis aspect; the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) confirmedthose findings. 5.Both the said authorities noticed that the Company hadadequate surplus and reserves – to the extent of Rs.188 crores. 6.In the circumstances, disallowance was not warranted. On thisaspect, the question having been considered by the CIT(A) andconfirmed by the ITAT, the Court is of the opinion that no questionof law arises. 7.So far as the question on account of depreciation rule isconcerned, the Court notices that firstly, similar disallowances werenot permitted – when re-assessment was sought to be made. 8.Furthermore,suchdepreciationisalsopermissibleinaccordance with the principles enunciated in CIT versus ShethManilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust, 198 ITR 598(Guj.) andother subsequent decisions. 9.In the light of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of theopinion that no substantial question of law arises. 10.The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DECEMBER 04, 2017 ‘Sn’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J