TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. Respondent Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Tarana Panda, Advocates. O R D E R The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had affirmed the CIT (A) s order in regard to the disallowance of interest that the assessee had made. It is urged that the interpretation of Section 57 (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ITAT is erroneous. The assessee had for the purpose of business, borrowed capital from the Bank through overdraft account. The borrowing bank had insisted on securing the advance resulting in the assessee s depositing an amount of ₹ 7.25 crores in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of business and as such the assessee is eligible for the deduction of interest payment against the interest income. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no proper justification for the AO to make the disallowance of the interest by the AO and accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee in the return of income and as such the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The above findings were concurred by the ITAT in the impugned order. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, 2001 (10) SCC 67 and the latter decision of this Court in CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee obtained and not for the purpose of earning interest as is insisted upon under Section 57. The second question sought to be urged is with respect to the sum of ₹ 1.3 crores. Besides noting that these are fact based findings rendered concurrently, the Court is of the opinion that the ITAT s view that since the last transaction, i.e., borrowing to the tune of ₹ 7.2 crores could not be doubted, the addition made was not permissible, is correct. No question of law arises on this aspect. In the circumstances, the findings rendered by the CIT (A) and endorsed by the ITAT cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, ITA 162/2017 and 198/2017 are accordingly dismissed. ITA 202/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
