The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-2, v. Ge Money Financial Service Pvt. Ltd.

; $~l6<fe 18 • * IN TttEjilGH GbtJRt OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + :ITA 225/2017 THE PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-4 Appellant Through:

Mr. RuchirBhatiawithMr. Gaurav Khetarpal&Mr. PuneetRai, Advs.

versus GH MONEYHNANCIALSHRVlCIiSPVT.LTD.

Respondent Through:

Mr. SachitJolly,Adv. for + ITA 433/2017 triePRlKtCIPALCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX,DELHI-2 ^....Appellant .

Through:

Mr. RahulKaushik,SeniorStanding Counselfor IncomeTaxDeptt.

versus .

GE MONEYFINANCIALSERVICEPVT.LTD. .....Respondent through:

Mr. SachitJolly,Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLEMR. JUSTICES. RAVINDRABHAT HON'BLEMR/JUSTICESANJEEVSACHDEVA

ORDER

01.11.2017 The question of law urged by the Revenue is with respect to the treatmentofloss on saleofloanportfolio,whichwas not acceptedas falling in the capital stream but treated as income. The assessee,anon-banking financialcompany,hadrelieduponSection36(2)(i)whichreadsas follows: By:AMULYA lTA Nos:225/2017&433/2017 .

..

.

„ , Page I

^^^^^of,thefollowmgprovisionsshallapply.

'"f deductionMl be allowedunlesssuch deh, been takenintoaccount,n € the assesseeOfthepreviousyear in '^^reofZntZiit th„ ^^''^ents money lent in theordina^courseofthe businessofbankingor,mn^ te"d,ngwhichis carriedon bytheJsessee.^ ^ :

„ Courtnoticesthatthe assesseerelieduponan identicaltreatment ofas.TMlar^ountforthe previousyeari.e.A.Y. 2004-05andtheorderoC theTnbunal.

"

Having regard to the above, the Court is of the opinion that no substantialquestionoflawarises. Theappealsarethereforedismissed. • S. RAVINDRABHAT,J / I NOVEMBER01,2017 S^JEEVSACHDEVA,J kks • ITA AAoc?7^/;/i,-7^