9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy. Since no actual gain accrued to the assessee, there was no question of taxing this amount. We, accordingly, confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) Disallowance of interest on borrowing - Held that:- Addition on account of interest upto the date of search to be deleted on the ground that no interest bearing funds were utilised for making any interest free loans/advances to various parties and hence, no interest should be disallowed in the year in question. See Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Jai Prakash Industries Pvt. Ltd.[2017 (3) TMI 1160 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Share issue expenses debited in P & L account to be covered under Section 35D - Income Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the departmental appeal in respect of disallowance of interest on borrowing amounting to ₹ 2,63,92,000.00 on account of disallowance of interest on borrowing even though the assessee had given interest free advance to sister concerns and other for non business purposes. (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the departmental appeal in respect of addition of ₹ 40,74,38,299.00 lacs made on account of retention money without appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on records. (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Income Tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne on account of incorporating the trial balance appearing in the Iraqi branch in the Head Officer books in Indian currency. Since no actual gain accrued to the assessee, there was no question of taxing this amount. We, accordingly, confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) following the precedent and in view of aforementioned discussion. 5. The aforesaid finding has not been shown to be incorrect or contrary to record. Similar question has already been considered by this Court in our judgment of date passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2007 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Tilak Nagar, Kanpur) and therein also it has been answered against Revenue. Accordingly, we answer Question-(i) against Revenue. 6. So far as Questions-(ii) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
