The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd

$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI18+ITA 546/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. PuneetRai, Advocate versus INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD...... RespondentThrough:Mr. Gautam Jain, Mr. Shaantanu Jain,Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocates CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R%02.05.2017 1. The short question urged by the Revenue in this appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the order dated 13[th]January, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) inITA No. 4192/DEL/2012 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09 iswhether the ITAT erred in the circumstances of the case in deleting theaddition of proportionate interest expenditure u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) ofthe Act? 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the Assessee at the outset that inthe impugned order, the ITAT has followed its order for the AY 2009-10 inthe Assessee’s own case. Additionally, he points out that for the AYs 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Assessment Officer (‘AO’) did not disallowthe interest expenditure as claimed by the Assessee. In other words, theAssessee’s contention that the interest expenditure claimed was notrelatable to the exempt income was accepted by the AO himself. The saidorders of the AO for those AYs as far as the said issue is concerned haveattained finality. 3. Applying the rule of consistency as reiterated by the Supreme Court inCommissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR295 (SC), the Court declines to frame a question of law. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 02, 2017b CHANDER SHEKHAR, J