Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 622 - AT - Income TaxTreatment to loss - CIT-A justified in treating the loss as business loss as against the speculation loss treated by the ld AO - Held that:- Respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, Wanchoo Committee report of December 1971 and our findings given hereinabove , we hold that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act 2014 should be construed as curative in nature and hence to be given retrospective applicability. It is not in dispute that the principal business of the assessee in the instant case is trading in shares. If the amendment supra is given retrospective effect, then the same would automatically fall under the exception provided in the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act and accordingly the loss incurred on delivery based share transactions should not be construed as speculation loss. In view of this, we are not inclined to get into the other arguments advanced by the ld AR and ld DR on the merits of the case. Hence, ground raised by the revenue in this regard is dismissed. Disallowance made u/s 43B - Held that:- The issue involved only requires factual verification from the bank statement and the loan account of the assessee as to whether out of total settlement of dues made by the assessee, whether the interest component had been duly paid or not. Based on this factual verification, the ld AO is directed to decide the issue in accordance with law. Disallowance of interest - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the entire details of amount of interest free funds paid to three companies were duly filed before the ld AO by the assessee. The ld CITA had given a categorical finding that no part of the borrowed funds were utilized for advancing interest free funds by the assessee. This fact has not been controverted by the revenue before us. Hence the primary test for disallowance of interest that borrowed funds have been diverted for non business purposes fails.It is well settled that when there are mixed funds (i.e both borrowed as well as own funds) and when the own funds are several times more than the borrowed funds and interest free advances, then it should be presumed that the interest free funds were advanced by the assessee from its own funds. Reliance in this regard placed by the ld AR on the decision of in the case of CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in (2005 (6) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA High Court ) is very well founded and is directly on the point. Thus we hold that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Disallowance of depreciation related to transferred assets - Addition on account of business profit - Held that:- There was no surplus that was derived in any manner whatsoever by the assessee warranting chargeability to tax. In any case, we are in complete agreement with the arguments of the ld AR that the transfer of assets by holding to subsidiary company would fall under the exemption clause provided in section 47(iv) of the Act and hence the same, in any event, would not be regarded as ‘transfer’ within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. We find from the facts narrated above, the assessee had only added the fixed assets pertaining to Ahimsaa Channel during the year under appeal including the capitalization of preoperative and preliminary expense relating to the channel and transferred the same at book values / cost to its subsidiary company. There is no profit element derived from it. Hence we hold that there is no case for making any addition towards excess depreciation or profit derived from excess of assets over liabilities. We find that the ld CIT-A had rightly granted relief by duly appreciating the facts of the case.
|