9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has held that the nature of loan would be of no relevance. He has further held that the benefit of waiver of loan in the case on hand is not other than in the shape of money. Therefore, the benefit would fall outside the ambit of Section 24 (iv) of Income Tax Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee had availed loan from several banks and the Consortium of Banks had waived the loan. Thus, whether the loan was availed for the purpose of working capital or acquisition of capital assets should not really matter and we are at one with the Hon'ble Single Judge with regard to findings recorded. Second contention of the Revenue is that right recourse for the assessee was to file an ITA and not a writ petition - Appellant is right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Senior Advocate for the assessee. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, certain loans availed by the assessee were waived by the Consortium of Banks. Assessee had filed its return of income for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The current lis is with regard to assessment year 2006-07. 4. The Assessing Officer did not make any additions in the assessment year with regard to waiver of loans by the Consortium. The matter was taken up in suo motu revision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and certain additions were made. Assessee challenged the same before the ITAT [Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench, Bangalore] . The ITAT, by its order ITA No. 1317/Bang/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the discussion made hereinabove without re-opening any fresh question for consideration. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has challenged the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in this appeal. 6. Shri Sanmathi, for the Revenue urged following two contentions: (i) Firstly that in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. (supra), the waiver of loan was in respect of the loan advanced for acquisition of capital equipments. In the assessee's case, the waiver of loan is towards working capital; (ii) Secondly, right course open for the assessee was to challenge the order passed in MP No. 47/2022 by filing an ITA in this Court and not by filing a writ petition was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee had availed loan from several banks and the Consortium of Banks had waived the loan. Thus, whether the loan was availed for the purpose of working capital or acquisition of capital assets should not really matter and we are at one with the Hon'ble Single Judge with regard to findings recorded in paragraphs No. 31 and 32 of the impugned order. 11. The second contention of the Revenue is that right recourse for the assessee was to file an ITA and not a writ petition. Shri Sanmathi is right in his submission. Ordinarily, a writ Court should not entertain a matter where there exists an alternative efficacious remedy except in rare cases such as violation of Principles of Natural Justice, imposition of disproportionate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
