Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 796 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of interest paid - interest on unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- We find that this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2013-14 had held the loans received from aforesaid parties to be genuine and deleted the additions made u/s 68. We hold that once the loans were held to be genuine, the interest paid on such loans are also allowable expenditure. It is not the case of the revenue that the borrowed funds from aforesaid parties were diverted by the assessee for non-business purposes. The assessee is a builder and developer and deriving business income from such projects. The borrowings were utilized only for the purpose of business which fact remain undisputed by the revenue. - We direct the ld AO to grant deduction of interest paid on such loans - Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. Disallowance of depreciation claimed on motor car - AO state that assessee is not the owner of the said motor car as it was in the name of director of assessee company - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee company had given reasonable explanation for registering the vehicle in the name of the individual director to reduce the incidence of indirect taxes , levies etc. This does not hinder in any way to allow the claim of depreciation in the hands of the assessee company, as the motor car was reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee company and that the vehicle loan was also borrowed for the same by the assessee - See M/S. BANGLORE SHIRT COMPANY PVT. LTD., [2018 (8) TMI 1849 - ITAT MUMBAI] company. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 43CA on account of suppression of sales - difference between agreement value and stamp duty value - allotment had been made prior to 31.3.2013 - section 43CA of the Act are applicable only from Asst Year 2014-15 - HELD THAT:- We are conscious of the fact that the provisions of section 43CA of the Act are applicable only when there is transfer of land or building or both. All the documentary evidences clearly go to prove that the assessee had not completed the construction of the office during the relevant year. It could also be inferred that pursuant to registration of agreement with the stamp duty valuation authorities, a right is created in favour of the flat buyer. Hence what the assessee had transferred pursuant to registration of the agreement was only the rights in the flat/ office (which is under construction) and not the property per se. Hence it could be safely concluded that there was no transfer of any land or building or both by the assessee in favour of the flat buyers pursuant to registration of the agreement in the year under appeal. Hence we hold that the provisions of section 43CA of the Act cannot be made applicable to the same. We find that the decision in case of SHRI YASIN MOOSA GODIL, [2012 (4) TMI 380 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] are directly applicable to the facts of the case before us hence, we hold that the provisions of section 43CA of the Act could not be made applicable to the issue in dispute before us. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
|