9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 41(1) of the Act. This, as the Court held is only to ensure that Assessee does not keep double benefit one by way of deduction and another by waiver of the amount, which has already been deducted in computing the tax; In this case admittedly, no benefit in respect of the loan has been claimed by the Respondent in respect of ₹ 4.11 Crores, in an earlier Assessment Year. Addition u/s 28 - at no point of time before the authorities under the Act, was it the Revenue s case that the waiver of loan should be brought to tax under Section 28 (iv) of the Act. No such claim was made either as a principal submission or even in the alternative. Therefore, it is not open for the Revenue to urge an issue which was not urged befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income under Section 28 of the Act on account of cessation of loan liability in view of decision of this Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. v/s. DCIT 308 ITR 471 ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal being the final fact finding authority, is justified in not examining the unproven credit entries in the Balance-Sheet and in not invoking the correct provision of Section 28(iv) of the Act, if Section 41(1) invoked by the Assessing Officer, was found by the Tribunal not to be the appropriate provision to tax the impugned amount of ₹ 4,11,27,086/-? Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as under:- 3. Respondent is engaged in the business of manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merchandise from any of the parties. It refers to Section 41(1) of the Act and hold that it could only apply in respect of remission or cessation of trading liabilities, the allowance or deduction of which had been made in an earlier Assessment Year. In fact, the Revenue had before the Tribunal, conceded/ accepted the fact that Section 41(1) of the Act will have no application to the present facts. Thus, the Tribunal held the waiver of loan in these facts is not covered under Section 41(1) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 10th August, 2016 of the Tribunal, the Revenue is in appeal before us. We shall now deal with each of the questions urged in seriatum. 7. Re. Question (a):- (i) Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in any Assessment Year as a loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the Assessee. Subsequently, if any remission or waiver is granted in respect of which such an allowance/deduction has been claimed, then the Assessee is liable to pay t ax on the amount waived/ remitted under Section 41(1) of the Act. This, as the Court held is only to ensure that Assessee does not keep double benefit one by way of deduction and another by waiver of the amount, which has already been deducted in computing the tax; (iii) In this case admittedly, no benefit in respect of the loan has been claimed by the Respondent in respect of ₹ 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
