TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Shri G.D.Agrawal, President and Smt. Beena A Pillai, Judicial Member Appellant by Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.DR Respondent by Sh. Ajay Agrawal and Sh. Saurabh Agrawal, C.As ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 19/05/14 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-8, New Delhi for assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 98,76,767/- made by the A.O. on the basis that assessee has given unsecured interest free loans and advances against projects/properties to the tune of ₹ 9,86,87,741/-? 2. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties. He therefore disallowed the proportionate interest amounting to ₹ 98,76,767/-in the hands of assessee. 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who deleted the addition by observing as under: 5. Determination : I have gone through the assessment order, written submission, paper book and details filed during the course of the appellate proceedings. The documentary details and other submissions have been carefully considered. It is a well settled law that notional incomes are not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Only real incomes are charged under the Act. However, the Ld. Assessing officer has treated notional interest income of ₹ 98,76,767/- as business Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that since no addition have been made in earlier years, the opening debit balance cannot be considered during the current year and that the enquiry has to be limited to the increase in the current year only. High Court also held that the status of the amount outstanding on the first day of the accounting year is the amount that stood outstanding on the last day of the previous accounting year and, therefore, its nature and status cannot be different on the first day of the current accounting year from its nature and status as on the last day of the previous accounting year. Appellant also cited various other judicial pronouncements in support of its claim. I, therefore, delete the impugned addition of ₹ 98,76,767/- on estimatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 12,35,98,991/-. AO has neither considered any notional interest income nor disallowed any interest expenses in respect of these business advances/ advances for commercial expediency and always accepted the returned income of (he appellant company. Even the present Assessing Officer also passed order u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2006-2007 and did not considered any notional interest or disallowed any interest expenses in respect of these business advances/ advances for commercial expediency. However, the same Assessing Officer has treated notional interest income of ₹ 1,48,31,879/ - as business income during the relevant year thereby himself accepting that these advances are business advances/advances for commercial expediency. Whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
