Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Asstt. CIT, Central Circle 1 (3) , Ahmedabad Versus Rajeshbahi Jivraj Desai and Vica-Versa and Asstt. CIT, Central Circle 1 (3) , Ahmedabad Versus Ashaben Rajeshbahi Desai

Disallowance of interest expenses - Held that:- Once it is established that there is nexus between expenditure and the purpose of business “which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself”, the revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of businessman or in position of Board of Directors and assume role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that 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

addition - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA. No: 290 & 64/AHD/2012, ITA. No: 291/AHD/2012 - Dated:- 26-2-2016 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. For The Respondent : Shri S.N. Divetia, AR. ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. ITA Nos. 290/Ahd/2012 & 64/Ahd/2012 are cross appeals by the assessee against the very same order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad dated 16.11.2011 pertaining to A.Y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lowance of interest expenses of ₹ 48,74,798/-. 4. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O found that the assessee has shown net loss of ₹ 28,16,606/- as per financial services trading account. The A.O further noticed that the loss is on account of receipt and payment of interest. The A.O found that the assessee has received interest of ₹ 31,77,516/- and has paid interest of ₹ 56,41,978/- to Rajeev Enterprise. The A.O observed that the interest has been paid to Ra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

advances to other entities. The A.O was of the firm opinion that by charging lesser rate of interest @ 6%. the assessee has incurred a revenue loss on account of interest earning to the tune of ₹ 48,74,798/- because if the assessee had charged interest @ 12%, he would have received further interest of ₹ 48,74,798/-. The A.O. accordingly disallowed ₹ 48,74,798/- out of total interest paid by the assessee. Thus, the total disallowance on account of interest amounted to ₹ 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otice of the ld. CIT(A) that from the land business, the assessee has made a gross profit of ₹ 5.45 crores. Thus, it can be seen that the funds have been utilized for the purposes of business. It was further brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that the Rajeev Enterprise has received interest amounting to ₹ 52,56,223/- and has paid interest of ₹ 56,41,978/-. Thus, there was only a difference of ₹ 3,85,755/- and not ₹ 24,30,996/- as held by the A.O. 7. After consi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gad - Narol and Sarkhej Okab area. It was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is not charging any interest on the deposits and credit balance with the sister concern. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that there is no business nexus of the assessee with sister concern, RJD Impex Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly confirmed the disallowance of interest of ₹ 48,74,79/-. 9. Aggrieved by these two separate findings of the ld. CIT(A) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

D Impex, therefore, the disallowance of interest is against the facts of the case since the transaction is purely on the grounds of commercial expediency. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this count. 10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The issue before us is to decide whether by charging lesser rate of interest whether the assessee has diverted the borrowed funds. 11. Neither the A.O nor the First Appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

im to put itself in the arm-chair of businessman or in position of Board of Directors and assume role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that the revenue authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman. These observations are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4. Appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. Coming to Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 290/Ahd/2012 15. The second grievance of the revenue is against the deletion of the disallowance of interest of ₹ 24,30,996/-. 16. A perusal of the factual matrix shows that the proprietary concern of the assessee M/s. Rajeev Enterprise has not used the funds for non-business purposes in fact the funds from Rajeev Enterprise have been diverted to other business activity of the assessee namely trad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

crutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O found that the assessee has shown land at Adalaj under the head stock-in-trade at ₹ 32,32,825/-. On perusal of the details filed by the assessee, the A.O found that the assessee had purchased the said land from Shri Hemendra Shah vide sale deed no. 12445 dated 08/10/2007 for a consideration of ₹ 61 lakhs. After adding stamp duty and other expenses, the total cost of the land was at ₹ 64,65,650/-, since assessee was having half share in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consideration shown by the assessee co-owner was at ₹ 61 lakhs. The A.O made an addition of ₹ 149 lakhs and divided the addition in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 74.5 lakhs and in the hands of the coowner Smt. Ashaben Desai wife of the assessee ₹ 74.5 lakhs. 19. Aggrieved by this the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). It was strongly submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that in the statement none of the Thakor family have stated that they have sold the land t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

purpose power of attorney was given by Shri Gandabhai Makwana, the original owner of the land, in favour of Shri Abbasbhai Malik, a broker. According to Shri Gandabhai Makwana, the land was subsequently sold by Shri Abbasbhai Malik without his knowledge to Shri Hemendra Shah for which total consideration of ₹ 57 Lacs was received. Out of this amount, ₹ 7 lakh was stated to have been received by Shri Gandabhai Makwana at the time of banakhat and the balance amount of ₹ 50 Lacs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e deed dated 21/9/2007 with Shri Hemendra Shah was cancelled on 21/6/2008. The land was then sold by Shri Gandabhai Makwana to Shri Manibhai V Patel and others (total six co-owners) on 11/8/2008 for total consideration of ₹ 2.10 crores (the documented price of the land was shown at ₹ 53.5 Lacs). In the statement recorded during the course of search on 15/10/2008 Shri Gandabhai Makwana and other family members stated that they had received total consideration of ₹ 2.10 crores in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urse of search in the case of Gandabhai Makwana and other family members, the AO came to the conclusion that the actual price of the land was ₹ 2.10 crores and therefore, the appellants must have paid ₹ 2.10 crores to Shri Hemendra Shah. On this presumption, he made the addition of the cash component of ₹ 1.45 crores (Rs.72.50 Lacs each) in the hands of the appellants. As can be seen from the above mentioned sequence of events, neither Gandabhai Makwana stated that he had recei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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