DEVINDER AJMANI,DELHI V. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 11(1), DELHI

ITA 6390/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Devinder Ajmani, a director of Harvin Impex P. Ltd., who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which denied him a deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for interest paid on a home loan. The loan, taken from IDFC First Bank Ltd. in 2012, was advanced to his company, Harvin Impex P. Ltd. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for the assessment year 2020-21, despite it being allowed in previous years under similar circumstances. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer to verify the consistency of the application of the deduction in previous years.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829861 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R. K GAUR; BHAVYA GAUR
• Keywords: Set aside; Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.6390/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2020-21) ITA No. 6390/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Devinder Ajmani, 2/27, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110015 PAN: AEBPA-8406-M ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant बिाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-11(1), CR Building, Delhi 110002 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri R. K Gaur & Ms. Bhavya Gaur, Chartered Accountants प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13.08.2025, for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The solitary issue in the present appeal by the assessee is denial of deduction u/s.57(iii) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claimed by the assessee in respect of interest paid Rs.27,16,082/-. 3. Shri R. K Gaur, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a Director of Harvin Impex P. Ltd. company. The assessee had initially taken Home Loan in the year 2012 from IDFC First Bank Ltd. The loan repayment schedule is at Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.6390/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21) pages 36 to 38 of the paper book. The assessee had advanced the said loan to Harvin Impex P. Ltd. and claimed deduction u/s.57(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) in the impugned assessment year disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction on interest payment of Rs.27,16,082/-. The ld. AR submitted that, the assessee had taken loan under the category of Housing Loan as the rates of interest was cheaper. The purpose of loan was for advancing to the company. The ld. AR further contended that the assessee is claiming deduction u/s.57(iii) of the Act in the past on the said loan and the same was allowed to the assessee. However, in the impugned assessment year the same has been denied on identical set of facts. 4. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently supporting the impugned order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The limited issue in the present appeal for consideration is assessee’s eligibility for claiming deduction u/s.57(iii) of the Act in respect of interest on loan advanced to the company wherein assessee is a Director. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee had taken loan under three loan accounts, as under:- S. No Bank/Finance Company Loan Agreement Product Amount Finance Interest paid during the FY 2019-20 1 Capital First 2005015 LAP 1,08,10,000 9,72,822 2 IDFC Frist Bank 551947 HL 11,79,85,000 34,91,412 3 IDFC First Bank 3865600 LAP 1,39,73,000 13,74,460 The AO/CIT(A) allowed deduction u/s.57 of the Act in respect of two accounts i.e. at Sr No. 1 & 3 of the above table. Both the said accounts were Loan Against Property (LAP). The AO disallowed deduction u/s.57 of the Act in respect of third loan, where the loan account was for ‘Home Loan’. The contention of the ld. AR is Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.6390/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21) that in the preceding assessment years the deduction claimed u/s.57(iii) of the Act in respect of interest paid on Home Loan account was allowed whereas in the impugned assessment year on identical set of facts assessee’s claim of deduction has been rejected. I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO for the limited purpose of verification of assessee’s claim of deduction in the past. If deduction u/s.57 of the Act has been allowed to the assessee in respect of Home Loan in the preceding assessment years the same be allowed in the impugned assessment year, following rule of consistency. 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 14th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 14/01/2026 NV/- प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.6390/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21) BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "