Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Dy. CIT, Circle-2, Range-2, Ahmedabad Versus Shri Parasar Navnitlal Patel, Ahmedabad and others

2015 (7) TMI 991 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Remission of unsecured loans - Whether could not be subjected to tax by invoking section 28(iv) of the Act - CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO as income u/s.2(24) r.w.s. 28(iv) - Held that:- Similar issue in case of CIT(A) V/s. Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy services Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 364 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein it has been held that waiver / write off principal amount of loan is not taxable as benefit or perquisites u/s.28(iv) because the benefits or perquisites should .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A. No.846/Ahd/2011,ITA. No.847/Ahd/2011 - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : Shri A. C. Shah, A.R. ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: These three appeals filed by Revenue pertain to different assessees are arising out form the orders of CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad, dated 22.12.2010 for all three assessment years on similar issue. So, they are being disposed of by way of this common orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssing Officer to the extent mentioned above, since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income. 2.1 Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- being amount written off since not payable on the ground that same was trading receipt in as much as it is a capital receipt and that no deduction was allowed, which was deleted by CIT(A). Same has been opposed on behalf of Revenue inter alia submitting that CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,00,000 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has been followed by CIT(A) while granting relief to assessee. 2.2 Assessee carries on business in shares and securities. Assessee took a loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- from M/s. Rajkamal Enterprise on 10th November, 2000 for the purpose of business. Assessee provided interest of ₹ 1,72,640/- upto 31st March, 2002 and was claimed as deduction. Subsequently, the party was not traceable and therefore the principal amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- was written off to capital account and interest of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessing Officer in assessment order is only a casual observation without adducing any evidence. Sharafi business means the assessee accepts the deposits from public and lends to public. In present case, assessee has not accepted any deposit from public and has not lent through public. Certain deposits are accepted from relatives and they are utilized for the purpose of carrying on business for shares and securities. Therefore, it was found that assessee does not carry on sharafi business and the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under: 5.5 The counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the recent decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) V/s. Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy services Ltd. 37 DTR 172(Del) wherein it has been held that waiver / write off principal amount of loan is not taxable as benefit or perquisites u/s.28(iv) because the benefits or perquisites should be of the nature other than cash. This decision has followed the cases of Mahendra & Mehendra 261 ITR 501(Bom) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

back amount of loan. Ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the Assessee has given a finding that the Assessee was not carrying on the business of obtaining loans and therefore the remission of loan cannot be considered to be a benefit arising out from the business. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the Assessee had relied on the decisions cited therein and also the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 267 ITR 770. Befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns could not be subjected to tax by invoking Section 28(iv) of the Act. Same is upheld. 4. In ITA No. 846/Ahd/2011, Revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- made by the AO as income u/s.2(24) r.w.s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, holding that remission of unsecured loans could not be subjected to tax by invoking section 28(iv) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version