9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned. The Appeal of the Revenue before the Tribunal was challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 22 December 2008. 3. Mr. Tejveer Singh, appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this Appeal, submits that the questions of law and which have been framed at page 5 of the Paper Book are substantial questions of law and require determination by this Court. He submits that the Tribunal failed to note that section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "IT Act") deals with value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession. 4. In the instant case, the return of the income was filed by the Assessee on 31 October 2005 declaring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f loan as income of the Assessee for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also added an amount of Rs. 5,47,70,190/- being the interest amount waived by Indya.com. Both these amounts were added to the total income of the Assessee-company. 5. This order of the Assessing Officer was challenged before the Commissioner (First Appellate Authority) and the Commissioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (261 ITR 501) deleted the additions. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 22 December 2008 was challenged by the Revenue in Appeal and the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner. 6. After having heard Mr.Tejveer Singh and Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, has been commented upon by the Tribunal in para 3 and it held that if section 28(iv) was applied that means the loan was treated as connected with the business of the Assessee. However, in earlier years the Revenue did not accept the loan transactions from Indya.com and to MBPL both as business transactions. It now cannot question or turn around from its findings. Mr.Tejveer Singh would find fault with it, but what we have concluded is that in the given facts and peculiar to the Assessee, that the Tribunal commented on this conflicting stand or versions of the Revenue. Either loans should retain the character originally labled or attached to or it should answer the term as a `business loan'. We do not find any reason nor any fau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
