TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax v. Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., [2011 (8) TMI 783 - Delhi High Court ] wherein, it has been held that the expression ‘advance’ occurring in section 2(7) along with the expression ‘loan’ should take its colour from ‘loan’ and cannot be given wider interpretation to include deposit as well, otherwise, money deposits given for investments, etc., would also qualify as ‘advances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere also ordered to be heard together vide order dated 17.09.2009 passed in Tax Appeal No.117/2009. Therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been admitted in terms of the following substantial question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 30.03.2005, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A). 4. In compliance of the order, the assessment was completed on chargeable interest at ₹ 46,98,76,608/, against which the assessee had preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 02.08.2007, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,35,21,788/and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the interest received on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld take its colour from loan and cannot be given wider interpretation to include deposit as well, otherwise, money deposits given for investments, etc., would also qualify as advances and interest thereon would become exigible to the Interest-tax Act. Such a situation was never contemplated by the legislature. Hence, inter-corporate deposit is not in the nature of loan or advance within the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
