9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case under consideration. Also The rule of consistency demands that for deviating from the stand taken in the earlier AY., the AO should bring on record the distinguishing feature of that particular year. We find that the AO or the FAA has not mentioned even a single line as to how the facts of the case under appeal were different from the facts of the earlier or subsequent years. We find that the disallowance of the expenses was without any basis. - Claim of interest allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance of Carry-forward loss and depreciation - Issue squarely covered by Judgment delivered in Lavish Apartment Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 666 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in which it was held that income against which brought for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned Assessing officer in not allowing setoff of brought forward unabsorbed business loss and depreciation against the assessed income. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal. Vide its application dated 04.04.2014, the assessee has made a request to admit additional grounds of appeal. In the application it was stated that the ground were purely of legal nature and facts were already on record. We find that the issue raised in the additional ground is about alternative claim for allowability of expenses u/s.57(iii) of the Act. Therefore, we are admitting the additional grounds raised by the assessee and same read as under: 1. Without prejudice and alternatively the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not considered separately, that it made an application for registration to Reserve Bank of India(RBI)to register it as NBFC, that the net owned funds of the assessee were below the prescribed minimum level, that because of that it could not get registration as NBFC, that it continued to carry on business, that it did not accept public deposits,that since incorporation the business of the assessee remained unchanged, that the assessee was maintaining two portfolio i.e. trading portfolio and investment portfolio. The AO referred to the commented of the auditor wherein it was mentioned that the RBI head rejected the application of the assessee to function as NBFC. He held that company was not authorised to carry out business of financing, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was argued that in case the AO held the assessee was carrying on illegal business then the net income of such business was required to be computed under the head profits and gains from business and profession, that by no stretch of imagination such income could be assessed under the residuary type, that AO should have allowed interest expenditure u/s. 57 of the Act. Before the FAA, the assessee stated that it had claimed set off of brought forward losses and depreciation brought forward from earlier years, that the AO should have allowed the claim of the assessee, that he had assessed the interest receipts under the head income from other sources, that due to a difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee income chargeable unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 76.09 lacs, that it had incurred the expenses for running business and maintaining the corporate entity, that it had shown the income to the extent of income earned, that the RBI had rejected the application of the assessee as it was not having sufficient own fund, the denial by the RBI would not turn the business of the assessee in to an illegal business, that the AO had erred in treating the income of the assessee under the head income from other sources, that interest income of the assessee was assessed as business income in the subsequent and earlier years, that if income was to be taxed u/s. 57 expenses having direct nexus should have been allowed, that carry forward of business loss and depreciation had to be set off against any oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re related with the business activity. The rule of consistency demands that for deviating from the stand taken in the earlier AY. ,the AO should bring on record the distinguishing feature of that particular year. We find that the AO or the FAA has not mentioned even a single line as to how the facts of the case under appeal were different from the facts of the earlier or subsequent years. We find that the disallowance of the expenses was without any basis. In the case of Rampur Timber Turnery Co. Ltd.(supra),the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has held that expenditure incurred for retaining the status of the company, namely miscellaneous expenses, salary, legal expenses, travel expenses, expenses would be expenditure wholly and exclusively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
