9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 - BOMBAY High Court] and Alembic P. Ltd. [1980 (8) TMI 42 - GUJARAT High Court] CIT(A) while granting relief to the Assessee has given a finding that the Assessee was not carrying on the business of obtaining loans and therefore the remission of loan cannot be considered to be a benefit arising out from the business. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No.845/Ahd/2011,ITA. No.846/Ahd/2011,ITA. No.847/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : Shri A. C. Shah, A.R. ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: These three appeals filed by Revenue pertain to different assessees are arising o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative supporting the order of CIT(A) and submitted that this issue is covered by decision in case of Chimanlal Doshabhai in Appeal No.70/2009-10 for A.Y. 2006-07, dated 28.09.2010, which has been followed by CIT(A) while granting relief to assessee. 2.2 Assessee carries on business in shares and securities. Assessee took a loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- from M/s. Rajkamal Enterprise on 10th November, 2000 for the purpose of business. Assessee provided interest of ₹ 1,72,640/- upto 31st March, 2002 and was claimed as deduction. Subsequently, the party was not traceable and therefore the principal amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- was written off to capital account and interest of ₹ 1,72,640/- (which was claimed as deduction in earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion to the recent decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) V/s. Jindal Equipments Leasing Consultancy services Ltd. 37 DTR 172(Del) wherein it has been held that waiver / write off principal amount of loan is not taxable as benefit or perquisites u/s.28(iv) because the benefits or perquisites should be of the nature other than cash. This decision has followed the cases of Mahendra Mehendra 261 ITR 501(Bom) and Alembic P. Ltd. 130 ITR 168 (Guj). Following the same, addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- made u/s.28(iv) r.w.s.2(24) was deleted. Learned Authorized Representative pointed out that said decision of CIT(A) has been confirmed by ITAT, Ahmedabad C Bench in case of M/s. Chimanlal Dosabhai Narodia in ITA No.21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me u/s.2(24) r.w.s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, holding that remission of unsecured loans could not be subjected to tax by invoking section 28(iv) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above, since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income. 5. Similar issue arose in ITA No. 845/Ahd/2011 in case of Shri Parasar Navnitlal Patel, wherein following the case of M/s. Chimanlal Dosabhai Narodia (supra), we uphold the order of CIT(A). Facts being similar, so, following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A) who has deleted the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- made by Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
