9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 934 - HC - Income TaxAdvances made to related parties - whether were for the purposes of purchase and conversion of agricultural lands? - proof of advances for business purposes - Held that - In the case of M/s Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd. the sister concern of the assessee 2015 (1) TMI 403 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT this Court has held that the money given by M/s Bagmane Developers Pvt. Ltd to its sister concern for acquisition of land is for business purpose and has upheld the order of the tribunal. In that view of the matter, this claim relating to interest on that advance is also not taxable and is an allowable expenditure. This is what the tribunal has held. Therefore, no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law.
Issues:
- Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the additions of specific amounts for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09, related to advances made to related parties for the purchase and conversion of agricultural lands, based on the purpose of the advances and lack of evidence for business purposes? Analysis: The High Court, in this judgment, addressed the appeal filed by the revenue against a tribunal's order. The main issue revolved around the correctness of the tribunal's decision to delete certain additions made for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 regarding advances given to related parties for the purpose of purchasing and converting agricultural lands. The tribunal had justified the deletion based on the advances being for business purposes, as seen in the case of M/s Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of the assessee. The High Court noted that the money provided by the sister concern for land acquisition was indeed for business purposes, as established in a previous case, and upheld the tribunal's decision accordingly. Furthermore, the High Court emphasized that the interest on the advance in question was not taxable and constituted an allowable expenditure, following the tribunal's ruling. Consequently, the court found no merit in the revenue's appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's counsel was granted permission to file vakalath within four weeks. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing the business purpose behind financial transactions and the significance of evidence supporting such purposes in tax-related matters.
|
