Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 356 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 41(1) - interest waived by the Bank - HELD THAT - The object and purpose of Section 41(1) of the Act 1961 is to ensure that an assessee does not get away with a double benefit once by way of deduction and another by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in the later year; vide Commissioner vs. Mahindra And Mahindra 2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT ITAT has allowed the appeal of the Revenue merely on an observation in paragraph 8 of the impugned order that once the assessee has debited interest in the profit and loss account then the assessee has already taken benefit of interest in its account whether he has taken the benefit of the Income Tax Act is not the relevant issue for consideration. This finding of the Tribunal is totally misconceived and is in complete ignorance of the express provisions of Section 41(1)(a). The first requirement of Section 41(1) is that the allowance or deduction is made in respect of the loss expenditure or a trading liability incurred by the assessee. The other requirement is that the assessee has subsequently obtained any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or obtained a benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of a remission or cessation thereof. Even if for argument sake it is assumed that the aforesaid first requirement is satisfied yet the other requirement in assessee s case is not satisfied as the appellant assessee has neither subsequently obtained any amount in respect of the bank interest debited in his books of account in the A.Y. 1991-92 1992-93 and 1993-94 nor waiver of interest on bank loan in the A.Y. 2003-04 is remission or cessation of a trading liability. Law laid down in Mahindra And Mahindra (Supra) is applicable on facts of the present case that waiver of loan amounts to cessation of liability other than trading liability. Hence Section 41(1)(a) of the Act 1961 is not attracted on facts of the present case. Thus Tribunal has committed manifest error of law to hold that the interest waived by the bank was chargeable to tax in the hands of the appellant assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 u/s 41(1). Consequently the impugned order of the ITAT deserves to be set aside and the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be affirmed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|