9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of charging of lower rate of interest on loans advanced when compared to interest paid on loans received. AO was not justified in making a disallowance for the difference between interest received and interest paid by the assessee. Disallowance stands deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.3259/Chny/2018 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2019 - SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,Addl. C.I.T. D.R For the Respondent : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai, in ITA No.219/2016- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arity in the period for which interest is received and paid, there could be difference. That apart, copy of the partners current account placed at paper book page 10, shows that debit balances in partners current account arose more on account of losses suffered in the earlier years, than due to any drawings by the partners. It might be true that it had received interest only from four individuals to which it had advanced amounts during the relevant previous year. This does not mean that assessee had not received interest from other parties in other years. During the previous assessment year 2009-2010, it had received interest of ₹ 13,34,06,510/- from persons to whom it had advanced loans. Hence in our opinion, it is obvious that dispa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consultancy P. Ltd (supra). The Department could not rebut any of the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, we sustain the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act. The grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected . Thus assessee has been considered as an investment company and making investments was part of its business. Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court also in the case of CIT vs. Shriram Investments (Firm), (2015) 54 taxmann.com 15 also held that deduction u/s.36(1) (iii) of the Act had to be allowed in respect of interest paid, if capital was borrowed for the purpose of business or profession. As already mentioned by us, there is no find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
