TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Scheme under Section 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- The amount received by the assessee from Saini Car Scheme were for business purposes. The assessee advanced a sum of ₹ 17,60,053/- as loans to employees on which no interest was charged. The advancing of loan to the employees was for business purposes of the assessee. The factual matrix was neither controverted by the revenue nor any contrary material was produced before the Tribunal to show that the addition of ₹ 6,16,645/- was wrongly deleted.- Decided in favour of the assessee - ITA No. 705 of 2009 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 4-5-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Z.S. Klar, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. S.K. Mukhi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer that no evidence was produced to explain the credit entries during the assessment proceedings and the objection of the Assessing Officer during the appellate proceedings that the entries were not supported by the Bank accounts? III) Whether on the facts and in law the Hon'ble ITAT was legally justified in observing that capital accounts of the partners in the firms are duly verifiable from the return of income of the firms while restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the records/claim of the assessee and to decide as per the provisions of the Act? IV) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was legally justified in observing that capital accounts of the partner in the firms are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee also filed appeal against the order of penalty before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure A-2) deleted the additions of ₹ 1.30 crore and ₹ 6,16,645/- made by the Assessing Officer. The imposition of penalty was also set aside vide order dated 17.3.2008. The revenue assailed the order, Annexure A-2, before the Tribunal and also challenged order deleting the penalty. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure A-3) restored the issue back regarding addition of ₹ 1.30 to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the records/claim of the assessee and to decide the same as per the provisions of the Act. However, regarding addition of ₹ 6,16,645/- made by the Assessing Officer on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, questions No.(I) to (IV) are decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. Adverting to question No. (V) regarding deletion of addition of ₹ 6,16,645/- on account of interest paid to M/s Saini Car Scheme under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal had recorded that the amount received by the assessee from Saini Car Scheme were for business purposes. The assessee advanced a sum of ₹ 17,60,053/- as loans to employees on which no interest was charged. The advancing of loan to the employees was for business purposes of the assessee. The factual matrix was neither controverted by the revenue nor any contrary material was produced before the Tribunal to show that the addition of ₹ 6,16,645/- was w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
