9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter relates to AY 2011-2012. In these circumstances, we have queried the learned counsel for the parties, as to whether the aforementioned judgment was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the parties say, that the judgment remains undisturbed. Write off interest and other liabilities - assessee entered into a One Time Settlement (OTS) with the Vijaya Bank, and in that process, an amount equivalent and interest accrued thereof, was written-off - HELD THAT:- As what emerges from a perusal of the Tribunal s judgment that the claim by Vijaya Bank for recovery against the petitioner [i.e., defendant no.1] in respect of the indemnity bond furnished was dismissed. There was, therefore, no loan, as alleged, take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition is directed against the notice dated 28.03.2018 passed by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short Act ]. 2. Notice in this writ petition was issued on 20.12.2018, when an interim direction was issued, to the effect, that while reassessment proceedings could continue, no final order would be passed till the next date of hearing. 3. The record shows, that the interim direction was made absolute on 20.08.2019, during the pendency of the writ petition. Consequently, the interlocutory application i.e., CM No.53887/2018 was disposed of. 4. Mr Sachit Jolly, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that two issues were raised by the assessing officer, which led to the issuance of the impugned not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the banks. The information was passed on to the undersigned to examine from records that whether the assessee has properly explained the source of fund to the bank for one time settlement and written back the interest claimed in earlier years on higher amount of loan. 5. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the judgment dated 20.08.2019 rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11541/2017, titled Vedanta Ltd. (Successor of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited) v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-26(1), New Delhi covers the said issue against the respondent. 5.1 To be noted, the said judgment concerned Assessment Year (AY) 2010-2011, while the instant matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of the institution of the application, till its realization. There were other reliefs also sought by the Vijaya Bank, in the OA, which were framed as alternate reliefs to the principal relief claimed in the OA. 10. For the sake of convenience, the principal prayer made in the OA is extracted hereafter: a) for a sum of Rs. 45,37,696/- against Defendant Nos.1 to 6 jointly and severally with further interest @ 24.5% p.a. from the date of the suit/ application till realisation. 11. It is important to note, that the OA came to be registered in the Tribunal, after the summary suit filed by the Vijaya Bank [i.e., Suit No. 4093/1998] in the Bombay High Court was transferred to the Tribunal. 12. A perusal of the judgment woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d furnished was dismissed. 15.1 There was, therefore, no loan, as alleged, taken by petitioner and thus, quite logically, no OTS could have been arrived at between the petitioner and Vijaya Bank. 16. The assessing officer, in our view, also went wrong in observing that the petitioner may have claimed interest against the loan supposedly received by it in earlier years. 17. As is noticed hereinabove, the petitioner had only furnished an indemnity bond for possible misuse of dividend warrants. 18. Dividends, as is well known, involve appropriation of profits and therefore, the petitioner could not have possibly claimed deduction against its profits. 19. Given these circumstances, we are of the view, that there was no applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
