TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd lease rental on non-performing assets in view of the RBI guidelines, according to which income relating to sub-standard assets/non performing assets which was outstanding for more than six months was not treated as income. (2) deposits for purchase of vehicle and was transferred to the hire purchase account, that the security deposit was given by cheque and that both these amounts were genuine, were based on appreciation of evidence and material on record. - 519/05 - - - Dated:- 14-5-2009 - AGRAWAL R. K. and AWASTHI R. R. JJ. A.N. Mahajan for the appellant. S.D. Singh for the respondent. Judgment: In the present appeal filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om hire purchase business and leasing of transport vehicles and machinery. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1997-98, the Assessing Officer noticed deposits of Rs. 1,75,000 from one Smt. Sheela Rani and another of Rs. 13,00,012, relating to security deposit from one Sri Jagar Singh. The aforesaid amounts were added by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. The assessing authority has also noticed that the respondent-assessee had not charged lease rental on non-performing assets, which he calculated at Rs. 43,47,117 and had also excluded the hire charges relating to the non-performing assets which were added as income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted both the additions, which ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was outstanding for more than six months, was not to be treated as income/profits. The Tribunal further found that the respondent-assessee being a non-banking financial-company was bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and if the guidelines were not followed, the assessee would face derecognition/deregistration from the Reserve Bank of India. 7. We also find that the apex court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355; AIR 2000 SC 94 has held that the interest shown by the bank on sticky advance and doubtful loans and not brought into the profit and loss account cannot be included in the income of the assessee till such time interest is not actually received. Similar view has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
