Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1939 - AT - Income TaxRemission of liability in respect of unsecured loans from Bodies Corporate - Whether same represents the income of the Appellant Company within the meaning of section 28(iv) read with Section 2(24) ? - HELD THAT:- No interest was recovered and initially for one or two years, the interest expense or interest income was provided and thereafter no provision of the interest expense and interest income was made. Though there was nothing placed on record in this regard. In any case, with the present facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee company is doing business of raising loan on interest and advancing the same on interest i.e. the money lending business. Though the assessee has not provided the interest expenses and interest income during the impugned year for the reasons best known to assessee. The said loans according to us has been raised during the course of business and the same were advanced during the course of business as a matter of main object of the assessee. The assessee has used the said loans for day to day business operation in the normal course during the year when loans were raised and advanced. No capital assets has been purchased on raising of such unsecured loans. In the case of Solid Containers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2008 (8) TMI 156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble Bombay High Court applied the decision in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. [1996 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] distinguished its decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd [2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and held that the waiver of loan taken for business purposes, the amount is retained in the business and as such, the amount that initially did not have the character of income becomes income liable to tax. Moreover, there is nothing on record that the company was dissolved and no certificate to this extent has been placed on record before any of the authorities below or even before us. Moreover, in view of the decisions relied upon hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), who has rightly confirmed the action of the A.O. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. As regards the argument with regard to section 28(iv), the same cannot help the assessee since the definition has expanded the ambit of income and not reduced the definition and therefore, the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for assessee in this regard cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
|