TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bt being the loan given to Mr. Anup Kumar. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the same because the conditions laid down in section 36(1)(vi) of the Act was not fulfilled. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer because the assessee did not furnish any details regarding the amount advanced to Mr. Anup Kumar. We also do not find it necessary to interfere with the orders of the Revenue because even before us at this stage, the assessee has not furnished any details in regard to the loan extended to Mr. Anup Kumar. Therefore we are not able to ascertain whether the loan was given during the course of the business of the assessee and for the business purpose of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of section 10(10D) of the Act specifically excludes any sum received under keyman insurance policy from the income which do not form part of the total income under Chapter III of the Act. Therefore, we hereby confirm the order of the Revenue on this issue.- Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1057/Mds/2013, I.T.A.No.1564/Mds/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2016 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Department : Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT For the Assessee : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM These two appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are concised and adjudicated herein below:- Ground No.1: Disallowance of ₹ 4,57,200/- being expenditure incurred towards public issue: 5. The assessee has written off ₹ 4,57,200/- as public issue expenses. The assessee had explained before the learned Assessing Officer that, during the relevant assessment year, the assessee had paid an amount of ₹ 22,86,000/- as brokerage to Bank of Madura for placement of the equity shares of the assessee company amounting to ₹ 3.96 crores. The learned Assessing Officer opined that the expenditure incurred even for expansion of capital cannot be treated as revenue expenditure citing the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use even before us at this stage, the assessee has not furnished any details in regard to the loan extended to Mr. Anup Kumar. Therefore we are not able to ascertain whether the loan was given during the course of the business of the assessee and for the business purpose of the assessee or due to its credit sale. Hence, we hereby confirm the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Ground No.3: Disallowance of ₹ 38,00,000/- being the amount written off as miscellaneous expenditure: 7. The assessee has incurred various expenses in regard to its business expansion amounting to ₹ 95,00,000/- during the assessment year 1999-2000 as detailed herein below:- i) Paid to Saran Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order because it was incurred towards issue of equity share capital and therefore falls in the field of Capital expenditure. 7.1 We find merit in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) because he has rightly disallowed the expenditure incurred towards issue of share capital relying in the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court cited supra. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with his order on this issue. Ground No.4: Disallowance of ₹ 12,00,000/- being the amount written off as loss on investment: 8. The assessee company had invested in equity shares amounting to ₹ 12,00,000/- in the company M/s. Money Shopee Network Ltd. The assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on keyman insurance policy taken in the name of Shri K.V.Balakrishnan, Director of the company. Since the accrued bonus on keyman insurance policy is an income of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer brought the same into the tax net. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer because as per the provisions of section 10(10D) of the Act, the amount received on the maturity of the keyman insurance policy is taxable along with the bonus received by the assessee company. We find merit in the orders of the Revenue because the provisions of section 10(10D) of the Act specifically excludes any sum received under keyman insurance policy from the income which do not for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
