9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 164 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of accrued interest on investment Held that - It was advanced towards share application money and the promissory notes were obtained only as a safety measure since company has not allotted shares to the assessee - if the amount advanced by the assessee was converted to share application money in March 2008 and ultimately shares were allotted to the assessee, then the amount cannot be treated as unsecured loan post conversion to share application money, consequentially there cannot be any accrued interest on amount - the AO is directed to verify the books of account of M/s Amareswara Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. to ascertain the date on which unsecured loan given by the assessee was converted to share application money and accordingly assess the interest income till such FY thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification Decided in favour of Assessee. Claim of deduction on interest on borrowed capital u/s 24 Held that - The claim of deduction towards interest payment was disallowed primarily for the reason that the assessee could not substantiate such claim by producing documentary evidence/proof - there is no reason why it should be disallowed in the subsequent year thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication - assessee is also directed to furnish documentary evidence, to substantiate her claim - If on verification assessee s claim is found to be correct then deduction claimed has to be allowed Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of accrued interest on investment. 2. Disallowance of deduction claimed towards interest on borrowed capital under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment of Accrued Interest on Investment: The primary dispute in these appeals pertains to the assessment of accrued interest on an investment of Rs. 88,50,000/- made by the assessee with M/s Amareswara Agritech Ltd. The assessee, a director of several companies, had initially filed returns declaring different incomes for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11. During a search and seizure operation, promissory notes indicating interest charged at 18% per annum were found. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the interest income should be taxed on an accrual basis due to the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, reasoning that the promissory notes were evidence of the right to receive interest. The assessee argued that the amount was intended as share application money and the promissory notes were obtained for security purposes. The company confirmed that the amount was treated as an unsecured loan initially and later converted to share application money. However, the AO and CIT(A) did not accept these explanations, emphasizing the promissory notes and the lack of documentary evidence supporting the conversion to share application money. The Tribunal acknowledged the company's confirmation that the amount was treated as an unsecured loan for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and converted to share application money in March 2008. It directed the AO to verify the company's books to ascertain the exact date of conversion and assess the interest income accordingly. This decision was applied to all related appeals for the subsequent assessment years. 2. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed Towards Interest on Borrowed Capital under Section 24:The second issue involved the disallowance of deductions claimed by the assessee towards interest on borrowed capital under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act. The AO noted that the interest claimed was increasing each year contrary to the general trend. The assessee explained that the loan was taken long before and the interest component was increasing due to non-payment of principal and compounding interest. However, the AO disallowed the claim due to lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting the absence of any confirmation from the lender. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's contention that similar claims were allowed in previous years, remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination. The AO was directed to verify if similar claims were allowed in earlier years and to allow the deduction if the assessee's claim was substantiated with evidence. Conclusion:All the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO to verify and reassess based on the provided guidelines. Pronounced in the open court on 01/08/2014.
|
