Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 960 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained unsecured loan - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has observed that he did not find that any evidence was unearthed during the search conducted on the assessee to indicate that these amounts were not genuine. Having searched the assessee and failed to get any evidence, it is not legally tenable for the Revenue to allege that the assessee has failed to prove the transactions. Ld. CIT(A) has further observed that once assessee gives some details the burden shifts on the Revenue to disprove the claim made. Else, the claim has to be accepted. When loans / advances taken through the banking channel and returned through the banking channel it cannot be doubted in the absence of evidence to the contrary. We find force in the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) that as there is no evidence to the contrary, the additions made are not legally sustainable and are rightly deleted. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. - Decided in fvaour of assessee. Disallowance of interest on loan - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Ld. CIT(A) has concluded that this ground of appeal is consequential to the fourth ground of appeal dealt while deleting the addition of ₹ 12,20,000/- above. Since relief has been allowed in the main ground, the consequential ground as to allowed. The disallowance of interest paid he deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Fee paid to ROC - Revenue v/s Capital - Held that:- The expenditure on issue of shares and the fees paid to the Registrar of the Company is capital in nature. Expenditure incurred by a company in connection with issue of share with a view to increase its share capital, is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company, and is capital expenditure, even though it may incidentally help in the business of the company and in the profit making. Hence, the same cannot be allowed as revenue expense. See PSIDC vs. CIT [1996 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court] Brooke Bond vs. CIT [1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court] and CIT vs. Kodak India Ltd. [2001 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court]. - Decided in favour of revenue.
|