Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1317 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of rent on gold - Held that:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Limited (2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT) held that in case of consistent view taken in favour of the assessee on questions, the Court will not take a different view without very convincing reasons. Therefore, following the rule of consistency as in earlier assessment years, the rent of gold ornaments had been allowed as deduction to the assessee and there being no difference in facts pointed out during the year under consideration, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and vacate the disallowance under the head “Rent of gold ornaments” and allow this ground of the assessee. Disallowance on account of interest payment in excess of 12 % - Held that:- Even the Income Tax Authorities as per Income-tax Act, 1961, charges interest from the assessee @ 15%. In the given circumstances, the assessee paying interest on unsecured loans at rates varying from 12 % to 18 % cannot be said to be higher side and does not call for any disallowance. Hence, set-aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition. Disallowing the interest paid to two HUFs - Held that:- Not convinced with the arguments of the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. The assessee has given a gift of ₹ 1 lakh each to its two HUFs and immediately taken the same money back as loan and paid interest thereon to the HUFs. In my considered view, this is a device adopted by the assessee to reduce tax liability and hence, the deduction for interest expenditure claimed by the assessee has rightly been disallowed. Disallowance of telephone and car expenses - Held that:- Since no log books were maintained, the AO estimated the personal use at 20% of the expenditure and made addition of ₹ 22,608/- to the income of the assessee, which was confirmed in appeal by the ld. CIT(A).At the time of hearing, no arguments were advanced by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee on this ground of appeal. Therefore, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
|