Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1218 - AT - Income TaxInterest from bank - income from other sources OR income from business - Held that:- As nothing has been brought on record to prove that the assessee was in the business of earning interests from fixed deposits, so, we do not want to disturb the finding of the FAA that the interest income was to be assessed under the head income from other sources - Decided against assessee Disallowance made u/s.36(1)(iii) - Held that:- FAA held correctly that it had received loan from Federal bank as on 31.3.2008, that it had advanced loans to three entities, that it had paid interest to the bank, that it had advanced loans to other companies without charging any interest,that the borrowed funds were not utilized for the business purposes. Case of Soma Sundaram and Bros (1998 (8) TMI 59 - MADRAS High Court) held that interest paid by the assessee was not allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.- Decided against assessee Disallowance of depreciation - assessee had not carried out any business activity during the year under appeal - Held that:- FAA observed that the AO had given a specific opportunity to the assessee to submit complete details for furniture,AC and motor car on which depreciation had been claimed, that no documentary evidences was furnished before him to prove the genuineness of the claim, that even during the appellate proceedings the assessee had filed papers without any evidence of use of the assets for the business,that it had failed to submit to substantiate its claim. Finally,he upheld the order of the AO. As nothing has been produced before us that could lead to the conclusion that decision of the AO/FAA is factually legally incorrect - Decided against assessee Addition made u/s.14A - Held that:- FAA after considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order held that the provisions of section 14A were applicable for the year under appeal, that assessee had received exempt income. Referring to case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT)the FAA upheld the ad hoc disallowance of ₹ 73, 705/-. There is nothing on record to prove that order of the FAA suffers from any infirmity - Decided against assessee Additional u/s.41 - Held that:- As assessee did not file complete details with confirmation,that it had submitted some photocopies without name and address of the parties,that the so-called confirmations were filed without any supporting evidences,that the assessee had stopped its business and liability is had been shown on account of interest payable for the last for many years which was not paid but claimed that expenses in the earlier years, that no documentary evidences had been filed to prove the genuineness of those papers, that for claiming any deduction the onus was on the assessee, that it had failed to submit confirmation of the parties, that it had failed to discharge its onus,that only book-entry was shown as liability, that the provisions of section 41 were applicable to the facts of the case, that the AO had allowed the credit of interest receivable, that the AO were justified in making addition - Decided against assessee Computation under the MAT provisions vis a vis disallowance u/s.14A - Held that:- FAA had decided the issue against the assessee following the order of the Tribunal in the case of R B K Shares Broking Ltd.(2013 (12) TMI 74 - ITAT MUMBAI ). Considering the above,we are of the opinion that there is no need to disturb the findings of the FAA. - Decided against assessee
|