9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see no reason to interfere. As noted, the assessee had pointed out that the amount lying in the ledger account of the assessee was not received by a loan from Canon Laminators Pvt. Ltd. but it was only in the nature of a trade advance since the assessee continued to supply goods to the said company. On such advance, the assessee had also paid interest. No question of law arises - Decided against r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is factually incorrect, which is clearly evident from the entries found in clause 24(a) of Form 3CD and annexure VIII, in which it is clearly stated that an amount of 'loan' accepted by the assessee from M/s. Canon Laminators Pvt. Ltd during the F.Y. 2009-10 was of ₹ 1,25,00,000/- which was repaid in the same financial year? 2. The issue pertains to a sum of ₹ 1.25 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest was also paid. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made no addition under section 222E of the Act. 3. CIT (Appeals), however, took such order in revision. He was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer did not make proper inquiries and the order of assessment was, therefore, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal, in the appeal by the assessee, reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
