9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncipal sum would come to ₹ 62.58 Lakhs (i.e., 441.30 minus 378.72). Either it is the interest which is to be waived, and if the same is not to be waived, then the waived principal amount of ₹ 257.08 Lakhs has to be reduced by the amount of interest of ₹ 193.96 Lakhs which is not permitted for deduction under Section 43B of the Act. In either case, the amount of deduction, as well as the amount which is subjected to tax, would come to the same. If we accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant - revenue, then it would amount to the department having the cake as well as eating it, which would mean subjecting the assessee to double jeopardy. This cannot be permitted. Either the interest amount has to be allowed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tlement with the Bank and against payment of ₹ 635.26 Lakhs (as per the Books of Accounts of the assessee), as per the one time settlement an amount of ₹ 378.72 Lakhs, was to be paid by the assessee to the Bank which was paid and the account was thereafter closed. In the returns filed by the assessee, towards the total amount of ₹ 378.72 Lakhs paid to the Bank, the assessee provided for ₹ 193.96 Lakhs as interest paid and claimed deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act ). After deducting the said amount of interest of ₹ 193.96 Lakhs from ₹ 378.72 Lakhs the figure of ₹ 184.76 Lakhs was taken as repayment towards principal amount. Thus from the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was correct in holding that principal sum of ₹ 2,57,08,826/- waived, is offered to tax, and as such, the disallowance of ₹ 1,93,96,881/- is to be subsumed into offer of ₹ 2,57,08,826/- on waiver of Principal, which is against the sum and substance of the scheme of allowing deduction under Section 43B which is based on actual payment of interest and recorded perverse finding? 4. We have heard Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.K.K.Chythanya, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee and perused the records. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and subjected to tax by the assessee in its return, the amount of unpaid interest of ₹ 193.96 Lakhs is deducted then the waived principal sum would come to ₹ 62.58 Lakhs (i.e., 441.30 minus 378.72). Either it is the interest which is to be waived, and if the same is not to be waived, then the waived principal amount of ₹ 257.08 Lakhs has to be reduced by the amount of interest of ₹ 193.96 Lakhs which is not permitted for deduction under Section 43B of the Act. In either case, the amount of deduction, as well as the amount which is subjected to tax, would come to the same. If we accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant - revenue, then it would amount to the department having the cake as well as eating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
