9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.237/Coch/2018. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:- The appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of asset management services. For the assessment year 2012-13 it had declared a total income of Rs.1,08,22,440/-. Its case was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the IT Act and the assessment that followed, it was assessed to a total income of Rs.2,02,75,110/-. In arriving at the total income, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs.90,73,279/- being the interest that was paid by the appellant on long-term borrowings. The disallowance by the assessing authority was on the ground that the loan amount in question was used by the appellant for purchasing l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiring agricultural land which have yielded agricultural income and as to whether disallowance is required to be made in respect of such interest paid. The facts noted above show that interest bearing loans were used undisputedly for purchase of land for agricultural purpose which yielded agricultural income. The contention of the assessee is that the said land was shown as business asset in the balance sheet and the land was also used for the purpose of the business of the assessee. However, there was no iota of evidence to show that the land was used for the purpose of the business of the assessee. On the contrary, it was used for agricultural purpose which yielded agricultural income which is exempt from income tax under section 10(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore is not entitled for deduction of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act which was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer." 5. The appellant has impugned the said order of the Tribunal in this appeal wherein the following substantial questions of law have been raised. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in reversing the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and holding that the expense incurred by way of interest paid on capital borrowed, to the extent of Rs.90,73,279/- was not eligible to be allowed under Sec.36(1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Tribunal misdirected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
