9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiring a office at Godrej Soap Complex, Vikroli, Mumbai. Therefore, the loan in the present fact was taken for acquisition of capital asset and not for the purposes of trading activity as in the case of Solid Containers Ltd (2008 (8) TMI 156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). The present case is therefore covered in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of this court in the matter of Mahindra & Mah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt in the hand of assessee and not the revenue receipt." 2. The respondent-assessee was dedicated Software Development Center providing Transaction Processing Facilities and Airline Control System services to Speedwing British Airways. The Respondent-assessee was located in the premises of Speedwing British Airways. Thereafter, in September October, 1998, it was decided between Speedwing British ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent-assessee's taxable income. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the respondent-assessee's contention and in the assessment order dated 24.03.2004 added the amount of Rs.70.12 lacs to the Income of the respondent-assessee. This was on the basis that the waiver of Rs.70.12 lacs was a revenue receipt and therefore taxable. 4. In first Appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardiwala, Senior Advocate for the respondent-assessee submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this court in the matter of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd v. Commissioner Income Tax, reported in 261 ITR page 501, where a waiver of a loan taken for purchase of capital asset was held to be on capital account and not on revenue account. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trading activity as in the case of Solid Containers Ltd (Supra). The present case is therefore covered in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of this court in the matter of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd (Supra). 8. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
