9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest. Keeping in view the assertions made by the Revenue on the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we feel that the appeal should not be dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself but should be heard in detail. Therefore, without expressing any opinion, we are issuing notice in this appeal returnable on 14th March,2019. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1159/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2019 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JJ. Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mr. Asheesh Jain, Advocates. Respondent Through: Advocate (appearance not given) SANJIV KHANNA, J.: This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act , for short) in the case of Gaursons Realty Private Limited (Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,00,00,000/- Banwari Lal Gaur 1,50,00,000/- Gaursons Infratech P Limited 18,000/- 5. The respondent-assessee had also given following advances to sister companies for purchase of land:- Name Amount outstanding as on 31.3.2014 (Rs.) Gaursons Realtech (P) Ltd 79,65,00,000/- Gaursons India Limited 2,36,18,780/- UP Township (P) Ltd 1,00,00,000/- 6. In addition, the respondent-assessee had paid share application money of ₹ 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Thus, distinction was made between loans and advances given for business purposes as distinguished from personal interest. This aspect has been also highlighted in judgments of Delhi High Court in Punjab Stainless Steel Industries versus Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2010) 324 ITR 396 (Del.), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 versus Reebok India Company, ITA No. 1130/2017, decided on 25th September, 2018 and ITA No.205/2018, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 versus Basti Sugar Mills Company Limited, decided on 28th September, 2018. 8. However, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue has relied upon and referred to submissions made by the respondent-assessee before the Assessing Officer, which read as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following cases that reasonableness of the expenditure has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and that the Revenue cannot seek to put itself in the armchair of the businessman: i. CIT vs. Walchand Co.: 65 ii. J.K. Woollen Manufactures vs. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC) iii. CIT vs Panipat Woollen General Mills Co. Ltd.: 103 ITR 666(SC) iv. S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC) approving v. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. : 254 ITR 377 (Del.) v. CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd.: 155 Taxman 268 (Del.) 9. It was also alleged that the respondent-assessee had not furnished copies of alleged agreements with M/s Gaursons India Limited and M/s U.P. Township Private Limited. The Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
