9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1961, and hence the disallowance of interest of Rs.49,984 was not justified?" The facts leading to the reference are as under: The assessee-company had paid a sum of Rs.8,41,608 by way of interest during the assessment year 1980-81. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.5,06,373 was paid to banks and so far as remaining amount of Rs.3,33,235 was concerned, as it was covered by the provisions of section 40A(8) of the Act, 15 per cent. of the said amount, being Rs.49,984 was disallowed and added in the income of the assessee. The assessee had submitted that out of Rs.3,33,235, a sum of Rs.2,00,258 was paid to the agents of the assessee and therefore the assessee had claimed a benefit under the provisions of section 40A(8), Explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts. He has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Agew Steel Manufacturers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 77 (Guj) to substantiate his argument that when interest is paid on deposits by the assessee-company, the interest paid is subject to disallowance of 15 per cent. as provided under section 40A(8) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Manish Shah, appearing for the assessee, has submitted that the Tribunal did not consider certain arguments which were advanced by the assessee and the evidence which the assessee wanted to adduce before the Tribunal to show that the assessee-company was entitled to the benefit under Explanation (b)(vii) to section 40A(8) of the Act. It has been submitted by Shri Shah that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. So far as the submission made by Mr. Shah with regard to non-consideration of the evidence is concerned, we do not agree with the said submission for the reason that no evidence was adduced by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to substantiate the case of the assessee-company. Had the assessee been right in its submission, the assessee would have adduced evidence before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee did not lead any evidence and did not place on record any material to show that the interest paid by the assessee to its agents was covered by Explanation (b)(vii) to section 40A(8) of the Act. In the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
