No Section 68 Addition Where Loan Repaid Through Banking Channels & Supported by Evidence

DCIT Vs Golfgreen Infra Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

The appeals arose from two assessment years involving disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) and addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO), while the assessee also filed cross-objections.

For Assessment Year 2015–16, the core issue was disallowance of interest on the ground that the assessee had advanced interest-free loans to its sister concern using borrowed funds. The AO presumed diversion of borrowed funds and computed disallowance accordingly. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the advances were made out of the assessee’s own funds, including share capital, reserves, and customer advances, and were part of a business arrangement supported by an agreement. It was also observed that both entities were taxed at similar rates and had paid taxes, making the transaction revenue neutral. There was no finding that the advances were for non-business purposes or lacked commercial expediency. Relying on judicial principles that emphasize examining commercial expediency from a business perspective, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the assessee had demonstrated commercial expediency and that the issue was settled by precedent. It also observed that the Revenue itself acknowledged the transaction as revenue neutral. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal on this issue was dismissed.

The assessee’s cross-objection challenging the validity of assessment due to absence of incriminating material was rejected. The Tribunal held that the legal position distinguishes between abated and unabated assessments, and the assessee’s case did not qualify for relief.

For Assessment Year 2017–18, the same issue of interest disallowance was raised and dismissed on identical reasoning.

Additionally, the AO had made an addition under Section 68 treating an unsecured loan of ₹5 crore as unexplained, along with disallowance of related interest. The AO questioned the creditworthiness of the lender, alleging circular transactions and insufficient bank balances. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee had furnished all necessary documents, including income tax returns, bank statements, audited financials, and confirmations. The lender, an RBI-registered NBFC, had substantial reserves and profits and had responded to notices during remand proceedings without any discrepancies being found.

The loan transactions were conducted through banking channels, repaid with interest, and tax was deducted at source. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The AO had not conducted further inquiry despite having the necessary details and relied on presumptions rather than evidence. Consequently, the addition under Section 68 and the related interest disallowance were deleted.

The Tribunal agreed with these findings, noting that the Revenue failed to rebut the evidence or produce contrary material. It held that the assessee had satisfactorily discharged its onus and that the addition was unsustainable.

In conclusion, both Revenue appeals were dismissed, and the cross-objection of the assessee was also rejected.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 2456 85 3028/Del/2022 with assessee’s cross objections C.O. Nos. 175/Del/2022 in former case, in A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2017-18, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s as many orders, dated 28.07.2022 and 28.10.2022; passed in appeal no. 28/10327/2019-20 85 28/10329/2022, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s.143(3) 85 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’), assessment year wise respectively.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2. We advert to Revenue’s former appeal ITA No. 2456/Del/2025 in A.Y. 2015-16. Its sole substantive ground is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,44,38,016/- made in the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed in the assessee’s case on 30.12.2018; vide following detailed discussion:

“6. Ground No.3 of Appeal: This to the disallowance of Rs. 2,44,38,016/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The appellant submitted that this addition U/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is arbitrary, illegal and uncalled for as the appellant has utilized interest bearing funds for the purpose of its business.

The appellant further submitted that, it was explained to the A.O. that the appellant company is a construction company engaged in construction of flats and selling the same to the proposed buyers. Likewise, the sister concern to whom advances has been given is also engaged in the identical business. The funds so given to the sister concern were out of own funds owned by the appellant whereas the borrowed funds have been utilized for the business purpose of the appellant. It was also explained to the A.O. that the advances so given to sister concern was part of overall business plan of the appellant company and it has no connection with the interest-bearing funds and those has been utilized for the business of the appellant.

6.1 The AO in his remand report has submitted that:

‘An addition amounting to Rs. 2,44,38,016/ – was made by this office u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee company on account of interest free advances given by the assessee out of interest-bearing funds. The stated disallowance was made by the Ld. AO on account of violation of provisions of section 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The stated provision or any other provisions in the income tax act nowhere allow the deduction of interest disallowance made under section 36(l)(iii) of the act to the assessee who has received interest free advances. If such would have been the intention of the law makers, he would have specifically mentioned the same in the above stated provisions. M/ s. Golf Green Infra and M/ s Mahagun Real Estate are separate legal entity and income of both the assessee have to be assessed separately as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

With due respect, Intent of law has never been mentioned in the statute itself. It is upto the judicial authorities to read in between the line and what is written behind the lines while adjudicating upon the matter pending before it. It is needless to say the assessee is always entitled to claim deduction out of its gross income of legitimate business expenditure incurred it, particularly, when the transactions are between two associated enterprises. Therefore, the contention as made by the AO in this paragraph about the intent behind the law has no merit.

If the assessee would have charged interest from Mahagun Real estate Private Limited then it would have been required to deduct TDS u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which would have to be deposited to the account of govt, by the 7th of the subsequent month. Further any delay in the deduction or payment of TDS would have attracted various penal provision as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The AO is correct while stating that TDS out of interest income would have been deducted and would have been deposited by 7th _of subsequent month and delay if any, in deduction or payment of TDS would have attracted various penal provisions as per Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the AO has failed to appreciate that when such transactions are between related parties, interest invariably credited to the account of payer only at year end and tax is deducted at source simultaneously. Meaning thereby the payee company need to pay advance tax as it would get credit of TDS as per law in due course of time.

However, in the present case bottAhej payee and payer company has paid advance tax periodically meaning, thereby the department has got revenue periodically as against getting TDS at the end of financial year.”

In the assessment order the AO has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Embassy Development Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore[2015] 378 ITR 677 where it has been held that “Assesses sought for deduction of interest paid on loan availed by assessee – Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of interest on ground that though assessee availed loan from KSIIDC, same was diverted to its sister concern and amount received was not utilized for business of assessee – Assessee submitted that borrowed amount advanced to its sister concern was in nature of sale consideration for purpose of acquiring a portion of property in project proposed to be developed by sister concern – It was found that even after three years, loan amount advanced to sister concern had not been used for construction of proposed project but it was used for some other project. “So, the deduction claimed was disallowed.

The AO has also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs. CIT 12011] 324 ITR 397 wherein it was observed that there was a clear-cut finding by the AO that the interest bearing funds were utilised for non-business purpose. It has been also observed that “We find that in the case of Tin Box Company [Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. Tin Box Co : (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del)] the capital of the firm and interest free unsecured loans available with the appellant far exceeded the amount advanced to the sister concern in all the years under appeal. The question as to whether the loans to the sister concern were extended for commercial expediency or not was neither raised nor examined in that case. Considering the decision of Supreme Court in S.A.Builders (Supra), what is relevant in such a case is as to whether the loan was extended for any commercial expediency or not and, therefore, it would be immaterial whether the assessee firm had interest free funds available to it or not.” in this case of Punjab Stainless Steel, Hon’ble Court also held that it did not deem it appropriate to allow the argument to be raised in an appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, particularly when the advances made by the assessee firm do not stand the test of commercial expediency laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Build ers (supra) ,

In both of the above cases the Hon’ble Courts have relied on the test of commercial expediency. The case of the appellant is different since there is no finding by the AO that the fund transferred for non-business purposes or there was no commercial expediency. Even in Remand Report nothing has been mentioned about this aspect.

6.2 I have gone through assessment order, written submissions as filed by the appellant, remand report furnished by the AO and the rejoinder filed by the appellant.

The issue involved in this case is that appellant has advanced an interest free loan of Rs. 85,73,00,000/- to its sister concern i.e. M/s Mahagun Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Investee company/sister concern/associate company). At the same time, it has debited its profit & loss account on account of interest of Rs. 11,60,05,823/- as paid to the banks and financial institutions on secured loan raised for construction/working capital etc. The AO has observed that the appellant has employed only Rs. 60,21,70,719/- in work in progress as against secured loan of Rs 80,58,20,850/- and accordingly, the AO has calculated impugned amount of Rs. 2,44,38,016/-@ 12% on Rs. 20,36,50,131/- (being difference between secured loan amount at Rs. 80,58,20,850/- and loan amount invested in WIP Rs.60,21,70,719/-)presuming that the same has been advances to sister concern as interest free loan out of secured loan and has made addition u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the taxable income of the appellant.

As against above observation the appellant has submitted that the impugned amount of Rs.2,44,38,016/- is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act as firstly the impugned advance of Rs. 85,73,00,000/- given to investee company is out of interest free own funds available with it in the shape of share capital, Reserve and surplus and Advance from customers and secondly the same has been advanced as business advance out of commercial expediency. The appellant in support of his contention has also filed copy of agreement dated 12.10.2013 between the assessee company and its sister concern. The AO has not disputed the contents of the agreement which is primarily agreement for business support services. The appellant has also stated that it is tax neutral disallowance. Both the companies i.e. appellant company and the investee company are taxpaying company at maximum marginal rate of tax. Copy of ITR acknowledgement of investee company is also filed during appellate proceedings. The AR of the appellant company urged that both the companies are taxed at the flat rate of taxation i.e. 30.09%, therefore, it is not a case of claiming expenditure in the hand of appellant company to reduce its tax liability without claiming interest from Investee Company on interest free loan. Even if the appeal of the appellant is allowed, in that case also there is no loss to the department.

I have verified copy of ITR of Investee Company as filed by the appellant during appellate proceedings. It has been observed that both the appellant company and the investee company has declared taxable income and has paid corresponding tax at maximum marginal rate of taxation as under:-

From the above table it is evident that the effective tax rate in the investee company is more than the appellant company. Further, in the Remand Report, the AO himself has admitted that “in the present case both the payee and payer company has paid advance tax periodically meaning thereby the department has got revenue periodically as against getting TDS at the end of financial year”. This shows that there was no intention of tax evasion on the part of the Appellant company or by the investee group company. There is no finding on record by the AO which shows that the transfer of fund was made for non-business purposes or to evade due taxes. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s. M/s. Gautam Motor (2010) 194 Taxman 21 (Delhi) also 334 ITR 326 (Del) is held as under:

“There is no case made out by the department that any tax avoidance has been attempted by these arrangements. We therefore, see no justification to hold the additions made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the CIT(A), the same is directed to be deleted and this ground of the appellant is allowed.”

In the case of Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd. (SLP Civil No. 18121/2007) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of related party transactions the authorities must examine whether there is any loss of revenue. And if exercise is revenue neutral, than the matter may be decided accordingly. So long as the arrangement is genuine and payments have actually been made and there is no tax evasion planning involved, when both the entities are paying tax at the maximum marginal rate, there cannot be any justification is disallowing any amount on estimated basis. Such revenue neutral addition made by AO unnecessarily increases avoidable academic exercise. In the case CIT v/s M/s. Excel Industries Ltd. (itatonline.org) in appeal No. 125 of 2013 vide order dated 08.10.2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the AO is required to be pragmatic and not pedantic. The Apex Court also observed that Revenue cannot be allowed to flip flop on the issue and if ought let the matter raised rather than spend the tax payers money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it. In the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court observed that, it is not as if the revenue has been deprived of any tax. We are told that the rate of tax remained the same in the present AY as well as in the subsequent AY. Therefore, the dispute raised by the Revenue is entirely academic or at best may have a minor tax effect. There was therefore, no need for the revenue to continue with this litigation when it was quite clear that not only was if fruitless (onmerits) but also that it may not have added anything much to the public offers.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd. vs CIT 12007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)held that “… the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.[2002] 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize its profit. The income tax authorities must put themselves In the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman. As already stated above, we have to see the transfer of the borrowed funds to a sister concern from the point of view of commercial expediency and not from the point of view whether the amount was advanced for earning profits. “It was also held that if the advances to sister concerns/ subsidiaries is for commercial expediency the deduction U/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is allowable.

Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs KEC International Ltd. 12020] 113 Taxman 532 (Mad)has held that interest paid on borrowed funds utilized for investment in group companies for strategic business purposes is allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

In view of the above judgements particularly in the case of S A Builders Ltd. vs CIT 12007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) and provisions contained in Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, the interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is to be allowed as a deduction. Hence, the question to be considered in a case such as in the case of the Appellant is as to whether the interest free advance was made by the assessee for commercial expediency or not. In the case of the Appellant, there is nothing on record to prove that the interest free advance to the sister concern was made for non-business purposes. Further, the investee company has been regularly paying the advance tax and the effective tax rate in the hands of investee company is more than the Appellant company.

Therefore, under these facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the case does not indicate any tax evasion plan. Both the companies are taxpaying entities at the same rate of tax. Therefore, so long as the arrangement is genuine and bonafide and the intention is not to evade taxes, it cannot be disregarded for the purpose of determination of tax liability of the appellant. Accordingly, disallowance as made by the AO u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is deleted and Ground No.3 is thus allowed.”

3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s and the assessee’s respective pleadings reiterating their respective stands un favour and against that impugned addition. Suffice to say, it has come on record that not only the asssessee had proved commercial expediency in making advances to its sister concerns but also the learned Assessing Officer appears to have filed its remand report that both the payer and as well as the payee had deducted the respective TDS thereby rendering it as a “revenue” neutral case. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that instant sole issue of commercial expediency in advancing loans to sister concerns is hardly res Integra in light of SA Builders (supra) wherein the lordships have already concluded that the same is to be decided from the point of view of the assessee’s day to day affairs only. We thus see no reason to interfere in the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion deleting the impugned section 36(1) interest disallowance in very terms. The Revenue’s instant sole ground as well as the main appeal ITA No. 2456/Del/2022 fails therefore.

5. Next comes the assessee’s CO No. 175/Del/2025, seeking to quash the impugned assessment for the precise reason of absence of any incriminating material found /seized during the course of search conducted in its case on 03.08.2026. We are of the considered view that hon’ble apex court recent landmark decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) has settled the same against the assessee and in the Revenue’s favour that the same applies only in an instance of an “unabated” than “abated” assessment as are the facts herein. Its Cross-objection C.O. No. 1751/De¹/₂024 is rejected accordingly.

6. We are now left with the Revenue’s latter appeal ITA No. 3028/Del/2022. Its former substantive ground has raised section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance issue identical to that in the preceding assessment year 2015-16 which is hereby rejected in very terms therefore.

7. Learned CIT(DR) next submits in light of the Revenue’s latter substantive ground herein that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in deleting section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- along with interest disallowance thereupon of Rs. 24,19,178/- made in the Assessing Officer’s assessment. We note in this factual backdrop the CIT(A) impugned lower appellate discussion deciding the instant issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department to this effect; reads as under:

5. Ground No.3 to 6 of Appeal: These grounds of appeal relates to addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 being unsecured loan raised by the appellant during the year u/s 68 of the Act by the A.O and disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 24,19,178/- thereon by the appellant.

5.1 During the assessment proceedings, as per the balance sheet of the assessee company it was observed that the assessee has raised unsecured loan from Utsav Security Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5,00,00,000/-, and the assessee had not explained the credit worthiness of lenders. The A.O. after analyzing the bank statements and ITR of Utsav Security, observed that the bank accounts of the lender has been utilized only to justify loan advanced to the assessee, therefore, this amount has been considered as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act.

5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the Appellant. During the year under review, the appellant company raised, unsecured loan of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- from M/s Utsav Securities Pvt. Ltd. (loan creditor/lender) and refunded the same in the subsequent financial year along with interest after deducting TDS through proper banking channels as per following detail derived from the ledger account of the creditor in the books of the appellant company.

The appellant furnished copy of ITR, confirmation and bank statement, ledger account in its books of accounts, audited financial statement of the loan creditor on 20.12.2020 in response to the notice issued by the A.O.

However, the AO was not satisfied about the credit worthiness of the loan creditor after verification of the documents furnished by the appellant in support of identity, genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the loan creditor. The AO again on show cause dated 20.12.2018, specifically asked the appellant to establish credit worthiness of the loan creditor. The appellant submitted that, on the basis of documents already filed, made an attempt to establish credit worthiness of the creditor. However, the AO was not satisfied with the submission made by the appellant in this regard and made addition of Rs. 5Cr. u/s 68 of the Act and corresponding interest of Rs. 24,19,178/- being paid to the loan creditor as bogus expenditure.

The appellant during appellate proceedings reiterated the facts as submitted to the AO during assessment proceedings. It was contented by the counsel of the appellant that as far as identity and genuineness of the transactions with the loan creditor are concerned, the AO has not shown any reservation or has passed any adverse remark in the impugned order. However, he has serious doubt on the credit worthiness of the loan creditor. The appellant contented before me that if the AO was not satisfied with the credit worthiness of the loan creditor, in that case he should have made further enquiry from the creditor itself, before making addition. It was reiterated by the counsel that he had made a written request to make further enquiry if not satisfied, vide its communication dated 26.12.2020 to the AO in this regard. Therefore, he cannot reject the evidence as furnished by the appellant in support of genuineness of transaction with the loan creditor. The appellant relied upon some judicial pronouncements which has been placed on record.

Accordingly, the matter was remanded for verification of the credit worthiness of the loan creditor to the AO. On remand, the AO issued and served upon notice u/s 133(6) to the loan creditor. From the Remand Report it is evident that the loan creditor Utsav security has submitted point-wise reply through e-mail including ITR Acknowledgement, computation of income, ledger account of the assessee and audited financials. The A.O. has not find out any irregularity in this submission. The loan creditor had furnished the documents such as copy of ITR, copy of balance sheet etc., copy of NBFC Registration Certificate and confirmation of the transactions with the appellant with the remark – our company has entered an loan transaction with M/s. Golfgreen Infra Pvt. Ltd. The statement of account with Golf Green Infra Pvt. Ltd. was also submitted showing payment made on 29.09.2016 Rs. 2Cr, on 30.09.2016 Rs. 1 Cr & 17.10.2016 Rs. 2Cr. Moreover, the above transactions were squared up by way of loan received back on 06.04.2018 – Rs. 2.5Cr. and on 07.04.2018 Rs. 2,71,77,260 which include interest also. The appellant has also filed rejoinder on 09.06.2022.

I have gone through the assessment order, submissions made by the counsel of the appellant, remand report and rejoinder thereto. The issue in hand for consideration is applicability of the provisions of section 68 to the unsecured loan of Rs. 5Cr. as taken by the appellant from M/s. Utsav Securities Ltd.

I have examined the facts of the present case on the touchstone of pre­requisite of section 68 of the IT Act. I find that M/s. Utsav Securities Ltd. is an RBI registered NBFC. Moreover, the appellant has placed on record the ITR acknowledgment, Bank statement and Audited Financial Statements of the lender in support of identity and genuineness of transactions, which are remained undisputed by the AO. With regard to credit worthiness, I note that the Assessing Officer has alleged that “there are circular transactions in the bank account of the creditor and it has hardly maintained any bank balance in its account. There are only debit credit entries on back-to-back basis. The AO has further alleged that the appellant has failed to disclose source of advances given by the creditor to it. Mere submission of bank statement is not proved credit worthiness of the loan creditor.” On the other hand, on perusal of the financial statement of the loan creditor, I find that the investor company is having sufficient earnings and reserves to give unsecured loan of Rs.5crores to the appellant. The loan creditor is showing healthy profit before tax of Rs. 1,48,88,487/- and has reserves of over Rs. 9,43,24,08,818/- in the balance sheet. It has duly paid Rs. 47,58,495/-toward tax liability for the AY 2017-18. The lender is an RBI registered NBFC, therefore, the nature of its business requires frequent transaction in its bank account. It is an undisputed fact that the loan amount received by the appellant has been repaid by the appellant along with interest after deduction of TDS in the subsequent assessment year.

Thus, the adverse inference drawn from the financial statement of the lending company is only based on surmises by the assessing officer without making any enquiry. In this regard, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd, order dated 21.04.2018 had held that when all the necessary details of the fund provider was available with the assessing officer, he was free to make the necessary enquiry and thus the addition under section 68 in the hands of the recipient were unjustified. Also observed that “the source of source also stands explained by the fact that the director of the creditor had accepted his giving a loan to the respondent’s lender”. Furthermore, assessee has also paid interest on loan to the lender and it has also deducted tax at source. Loan including interest have been duly repaid. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion assessee has discharged its onus.

However, the AO has not brought on record any cogent material to make the addition U/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Hence, the addition made by the assessing officer is not sustainable. Regarding, addition on account of deduction claimed by the appellant for interest payment on unexplained unsecured loan being bogus expenditure, since, I have already held that addition of loan as unexplained credit is not sustainable, the disallowances of interest thereon, on the same reasoning is also liable to be deleted. cordingly, these grounds no. 3 to 6 of the appeal raised by the appellant is hereby Allowed.

8. Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute herein as well that the assessee had duly discharged its onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned cash credits involving M/s Utsav Securities by filing all the relevant details even in the remand report as well filed by the Assessing Officer on 27.04.2022 in the lower appellate proceedings. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee’s creditor party had not only declared taxable business income as well wherein no specific rebuttal has come from the department. We thus express our complete agreement with the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition of section 68 unexplained cash credits made in the assessee’s hands. The Revenue fails in instant latter appeal ITA No. 3028/Del/2022, as well.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

9. These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 2456 85 3028/Del/2022 as well as the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 175/Del/2022 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th April, 2026