9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the interest paid thereon out of the borrowed capital also cannot be allowed to be written off as business expenditure. Therefore I do not find any merits in the present writ petition. The first respondent Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly rejected the Application filed under 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide the imugned order. The scope of revision under 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is limited and therefore cannot be interfered. Scope of revision under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be abused as a substitute to get over an order of assessment passed second respondent without filing an appeal. Nothing to stopped the petitioner from filing a statutory appeal in time before the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank Ltd and claimed the business expediture the interest paid thereon. In the Assessment order, dated 31.12.2015 the second respondent disallowed the same. Aggrieved with the same the petitioner filed application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.12.2017, after a lapse of two years. 5.The facts of the case are that Mrs.Thillaikarasi had entered into Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.04.2017 with a landowner namely M/s.Rangaswamy Naidu Orchids Private Limited to purchase 33.84 acres of land in Coimbatore District. The agreement dated 20.4.2007 was for a total consideration of ₹ 5,50,00,000/-. On the same date, Mrs.Thillaikarasi had signed another Memorandum of Agreement, undertaking to sell the aforesaid land peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amount paid to Mrs.Thillaikarasi was incidental to the main activity of the petitioner to develop a software technology Park and therefore the interest borne on such borrowed capital paid to Mrs.Thillaikarasi was liable to be allowed as a business expenditure. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9.From the facts narrated it is evident that the petitioner had borrowed capital from the bank and paid amounts the said Mrs.Thillaikarasi contrary to the memorandum and articles of association of the petitioner company. The amount that was paid to Mrs.Thillaikarasi was not a business expenditure. Therefore, the interest paid thereon out of the borrowed capital also cannot be allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
