9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Disallowed interest amount under the head "Interest" from the computation. Analysis: The dispute in this appeal revolves around the disallowance of Rs. 18,626 by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under the head "Interest." The ITO disallowed the amount as he believed the advance made by the assessee to Mr. Nesar Ahmed, son of a partner, was not entirely for business purposes. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) disagreed with the ITO's decision, stating that there was no evidence to prove that the borrowed money was used for non-business purposes. The CIT (A) relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Bombay Samachar to support the assessee's claim that the interest disallowance was unjustified. The Revenue argued that the borrowed funds were indeed used to advance a loan to Mr. Nesar Ahmed and cited cases like Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT and Madhav Pd. Jatia vs. CIT to support their position. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the interest disallowance was valid as the borrowed funds were not entirely used for business purposes. The ITAT disagreed with the CIT (A) and upheld the AO's decision, stating that the disallowance was justified as the borrowed funds were not exclusively utilized for business. The ITAT distinguished the present case from the Bombay Samachar case, emphasizing the need for a direct nexus between borrowed funds and business purposes. The ITAT observed that the borrowed funds were not solely used for business, as evidenced by the advance given to Mr. Nesar Ahmed for investments in film business. The ITAT referenced decisions from the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court to emphasize the requirement for borrowed funds to be directly linked to business activities for interest deductions. The ITAT concluded that the CIT (A) erred in applying the Bombay Samachar decision to the present case and reversed the CIT (A)'s order, upholding the interest disallowance made by the ITO. The cross-objections by the assessee supporting the CIT (A)'s order were dismissed as the appeal by the Revenue was allowed. The ITAT ultimately restored the ITO's decision, disallowing the interest amount claimed by the assessee.
|
