The Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Nikon Finlease Pvt. Ltd

$~42 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1069/2018 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia & Mr.Puneet Rai, Advocates versus NIKON FINLEASE PVT. LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Amol Sinha, Mr.Ashvini Kumar, Mr.Rahul Kochar & Mr.Shlok Chandra, Advocates CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN % O R D E R18.01.2019 1. Following two questions of law arise under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for consideration: Income Tax Act, 1961 for consideration: (i) Did ITAT erre in restricting the disallowances under Section 14A with respect to the valuation of shares? with respect to the valuation of shares? (ii) So far as interpretation of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 applied for the purpose of working of the disallowance under Section 14A(ii), Court notices that presumption drawn by the lower Appellate Authority is in consonance with the judgment of the Bombay High applied for the purpose of working of the disallowance under Section 14A(ii), Court notices that presumption drawn by the lower Appellate Authority is in consonance with the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported as Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd, 313 ITR 340 as well as Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. 2. This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the view of the ITAT inasmuch as, it relied on two decisions of the Bombay High Court. As far as the second question of valuation of the stock is concerned, the Court notices that CIT(A) followed by the previous orders of valuation, i.e. method of closing stocks in respect of both quoted and un-quoted shares consistently. As a result, there is no infirmity in the approach of the ITAT calling for interference. 3. No question of law arises. The appeal is hereby dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JANUARY 18, 2019 ‘hkaur’ PRATEEK JALAN, J ITA 1069/2018