Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 773 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 40(a)(ia) - disallowance of interest - Scope of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- We find that while allowing the claim of the assessee, CIT(A) has given a finding that payee has included the interest income in its total income and has also filed the return of income and therefore no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee in view of the fact that the 2nd proviso to said section has been held to be clarificatory in nature. CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of Rajeev Agarwal [2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA] while deciding the issue - In the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has also held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) to be declaratory and curative and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Before us, Revenue has not pointed any fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A) nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of these fact, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of short-term capital gain/loss - AO noted that it had demolished the existing building and since the building was demolished and it was the only asset in the “block of asset”, the written down value as appearing in the fixed scheduled for Income Tax working was claimed as Short Term Capital loss u/s 50(2) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given a finding that assessee had followed the right method of calculating the short term capital loss on the building which was demolished during the year and since there was no other asset in the said block, assessee had claimed the WDV of the said asset as short term capital loss as per the provision of Section 50(2) - Before us, no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue nor Revenue has placed any contrary binding decision in its support - Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
|