Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1245 - ITAT JAIPURClaim of interest expenditure against the interest income declared under the head income from business and income from other sources - case of the Revenue is that the interest on partnership firm has been shown under the head “Business Income” against which no expenses have been claimed and interest from other parties have been shown under the head “Income from other sources” against which the whole of interest expense has been claimed - HELD THAT:- There appears to be mistake on part of the assessee in terms of claiming the whole of the interest expenditure against income from other sources rather than claiming it proportionally against interest from partnership firm and other parties, however, the substance of the matter is that where there is a nexus established between the borrowed funds and lending thereof, as in the instant case, a principle which is relevant both in context of business income and income from other sources, therefore, in such circumstances, there is no basis for disallowance of interest expenditure. The fact that the assessee has wrongly claimed the same in the return of income under one head instead of both the heads proportionally is not a bar against allowance of such claim of expenditure under respective heads when the substance of the transaction that the borrowed funds have been utlised for subsequent lending has not been disputed by the Revenue and a specific contention was raised before the lower authorities. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed. Agricultural income or not? - Discharge of onus - HELD THAT:- The fact that the assessee has shown agriculture income and the same has been claimed as exempt from tax. The onus is clearly on the assessee to demonstrate carrying on of the agriculture operations during the year and earning of agricultural income. In absence of the same, merely by stating that the assessee owns 1.33 bigha of land at village Mangarh, Tehsil is not sufficient to discharge the onus cast on him. The findings of the lower authorities therefore remain uncontroverted before us and the same are hereby confirmed. In the result, the ground of appeal is dismissed.
|