TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curred by it had a nexus with the license that it could successfully obtain on 09.04.2008. Having regard to all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the application of law declared in Whirlpool (2009 (8) TMI 28 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and the decision in CIT v. L.G. Electronics (India) Ltd. [2005 (5) TMI 30 - DELHI High Court ] was unexceptionable. Loss claim - whether the loss could have been allowed at all having regard to the fact that it was claimed in the revised return and not in the original return? - Held that:- The revised return was filed within the time prescribed. In fact, the revised return was finally taken up for assessment.; the orders too were passed on it. In the circumstances, the very purpose of filing a revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue expenditure since the assessee had not set-up business during the period. Based on this, the claim for set-off was disallowed. 2. The CIT(A), after elaborately discussing all the facts, including the nature of activity and the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the period involved, reversed the AO s decision and held that the loss was a business loss and that interest income was also business income. On the basis of these findings, income was allowed to be adjusted under Section 71 of the Act. The CIT(A) also reversed the AO s findings with respect to commencement of business. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the order of the CIT(A). Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the impugned order is erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tomotive Singapore Pte. Ltd, 13,000,000 equity shares being held by AXIS bank Ltd. and the balance 5,000,000 equity share, being by Yamaha Motors Asia Pte. Ltd. During the relevant assessment year, the appellant company raised the share capital of ₹ 50,00,00,000/- and deposited in the bank accounts with the schedule banks in India. Subsequently, this amount was utilized for setting up of the business of the appellant company. During the relevant assessment year, the appellant company opened its office on a leased premises after entering into a lease agreement on 7.07.2007 and incurred further expenses for lease hold improvements of ₹ 36,81,929/-. The whole time directors and the other officials such as Chief Administrative Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tune of ₹ 1,87,35,439/- and that administrative and other expenses were to the tune of ₹ 3,42,24,191/-. It was noted that whether the expenditure could be allowed as business expenditure depended on the date on which the business was set up. On the basis of the above material, it was concluded that the business was indeed set-up some time after 23.04.2007. The AO did note that the license was obtained later but at the same time concluded that it started its business at the end of the relevant previous year. Thereafter, the CIT(A) held that any income could be established as business income if it could be proved that some business activity had taken place during the relevant time. In this context, the CIT(A) took note of Whir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
