Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (4) TMI 670

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notional income as its income in earlier years. Hence, the assessee is not eligible for deduction of bad debts. Similarly, it was never the claim of the assessee that the inter corporate deposit was given for business purpose. Even otherwise, the assessee is not in money lending, therefore, the assessee cannot claim that the assessee made inter corporate deposit in the course of his business. During the earlier years the assessee never claimed as a business loss on account of non-receipt of interest on such inter corporate deposit, therefore, the assessee is also not entitled for business loss as well. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 2234/AHD/2014 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2021 - SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the assessment the assessing officer noted that the assessee never charged interest on inter corporate deposit with Nippon Investment Private Limited, the assessing officer calculated and added notional interest. On such additions, the assessee filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the additions were affirmed. On further appeal before Tribunal the additions were upheld in all earlier years. On further verification the assessing officer noted that assessee made inter corporate deposit of ₹ 95 lakhs to Nippon investment Private Limited, out of which ₹ 80 lakhs were received in financial year 2005-06 and remaining ₹ 15 lakhs were received in the current financial year that is 2006-07. The claim made by assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erred by assessing officer in para 5 of the assessment order. During the relevant period under consideration the assessee received back the inter corporate deposits; however, they did not pay any interest to the assessee out of the above notional interest. The assessee claimed this amount of interest as deductible amount either as a bad debts or business loss under section 36(1)(vii) and/or section 28 by filing revised return. The assessing officer rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that principal amount is recovered. The learned AR for the assessee further submits that amount of ₹ 1.73 crore has already been taxed by the department in earlier years on the ground that it is accrued interest on inter corporate deposit. During .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ribed under section 36(2) for claiming bad debts. The business of assessee is not of money lending, therefore, the assessee cannot claim that the assessee made inter corporate deposit in the course of his business. During the earlier years the assessee never claimed as a business loss on account of non-receipt of interest on such inter corporate deposit, therefore, the assessee is also not entitled for business loss as claimed. The learned DR for the revenue further submits that before the first appellate stage the assessee itself admitted that issue is covered by the decision of Tribunal in earlier years against the assessee. The learned DR prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have considered the rival submission of both the partie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... helpful to him as the facts in all cases are at variance. In Deoniti Prasad Singh Vs. CIT(supra) as well as in C.T. Chettiar Vs. CIT (supra), the assessee was in the business of money lending business. In Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), the assessee discovered loss on account of misappropriation by it employee, which was treated as incidental to the business. Similarly, in case of Shiv Narayan Karmendra Narayan Vs. CIT (supra) the claim was based on account of embezzlement was made by its employee. Therefore, none of the case law is applicable on the facts of the present case. 9. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 22 Marc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates