9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing interest paid Rs. 4,53,210 as having no nexus with the interest income earned. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the facts that the funds borrowed from individual lenders have been advanced to M/s. SSAPL and has earned interest income on funds so borrowed. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the ground of appeal of not allowing profession fees paid Rs. 3,750 without assigning any reasons." 2. Facts in brief:- The Assessee is an individual having income from salary as a director of the company M/s. Sanghvi Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Besides this, she is also having income from house property and interest income. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from M/s. Sanghavi Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 492757 Other interest from Bond, etc. Rs. 82396 Total Interest Income Rs. 575153 Less: Interest, etc. paid to Principal Rs. 900000 J.S. Mehta @ 18% Rs. 161260 Rs. 250000 N.M. Mehta (HUF) @ 18% Rs. 37725 Rs. 250000 J.S. Mehta (HUF) @ 18% Rs. 31931 Rs. 1000000 Vinoda Trivedi @ 15% Rs. 149999 Rs. 250000 R.A. Trivedi @ 15% Rs. 31438 - Jayantilal Investment @ 15% Rs. 36287 Rs. 448640 Rs. 2650000 Net interest income Rs. 126513 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), on a perusal of the bank statement of the Axis Bank belonging to the assessee which was filed before him, noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,50,000 11,50,000 28.03.2008 1,00,000 25.03.2008 2,50,000 J.S. Mehta HUF 28.03.2008 2,50,000 25.03.2008 2,50,000 R.A. Trivedi HUF 02.04.2008 12,50,000 27.03.2008 10,00,000 V.R. Trivedi 16,00,000 15,00,000 6. Thus, he submitted that there is a direct nexus between the loan taken and the loan given and, therefore, the interest paid should be allowed under section 57(iii). He further clarified that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while taking note of the various credit entries, has failed to consider the amount shown by the bank on account of autosweep. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has gone by the fact that while giving the amount of loan to the company, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above). On these loans, she had paid interest of Rs. 4,48,640, which has been claimed as deduction for the purpose of earning of the interest income. On a perusal of the interest income, as filed before us, which has also been noted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that on 14th March 2008, the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 11.50 lakhs which was credited in the bank account of the assessee on 17th March 2008. On 17th March 2008 itself, an amount of Rs. 8,30,000, was debited by way of autosweep by the Bank and, resultantly, the credit balance was showing lesser amount which was Rs. 2,75,512, as noted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). On 19th March 2008, the amount of 11.50 lakhs has been debited in the account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest paid by the assessee has to be allowed from the interest income as there is a direct nexus. 9. Similarly, the amount of bank charges for a sum of Rs. 280, is also directly relatable to earning of the income from other sources. However, regarding professional fees of Rs. 3,750, nothing has been placed before us on record as to what was the nature of such professional fees, as it has neither been mentioned by the Assessing Officer / learned CIT(A) nor by the assessee. In the absence of any such explanation or record, the disallowance with regard to professional fees of Rs. 3,750, stands confirmed. In the result, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,48,640, and bank charges of Rs. 820, stands deleted and the claim of professiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
