9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why the principal amount should not be offered to tax. Respondent had made submissions that for chargeability under Section 41(1) of the Act, there should have been actual allowance made in the assessment of the assessee in the earlier year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal followed the decisions of this Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT [ 2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] upheld by the Apex Court [ 2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT] . The Court, on similar facts had held that on such waiver of loan taken on capital account, neither the Section 41(1) of the Act nor Section 28(iv) of the Act, are applicable. Thus, the question is no longer res-integra. No substantial question of law. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le by the Respondent was waived off. The Respondent filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30 September 2008 declaring total income at ₹ 3,77,24,331/-. The return filed by the Respondent Assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notice to that effect was issued by the Assessing Officer. The Respondent submitted its reply. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 6 October 2010 assessing the total income of the Respondent at ₹ 12,33,24,300/-. The amounts of ₹ 8,41,34,321/- was disallowed being waiver of loan on the ground that the waiver of loan amount had the character of revenue receipt as the liability had ceased. The Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tifiably made the addition of ₹ 8,41,34,321/- as it was a revenue receipt. 8. We have considered the submissions. Both, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, after considering the evidence and the facts on record have rendered a finding of fact that the loan was taken from acquisition of capital assets. Thus, the waiver of loan being waived off could not be termed as a revenue receipt. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded on this count by the Authorities. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had asked the Respondent to explain why the principal amount of ₹ 8,41,34,321/- should not be offered to tax. The Respondent had made submissions that for chargeability under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
