Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 1487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... MOA shows that one of the main objects of the assessee is to carry business of leasing financing. In the impugned assessment year AO has changed the head of income from profits gains from business profession to income from other sources. Primary reason for changing head of income by the AO is, that the assessee is not a registered non banking finance company. The findings of the AO have been upheld by the CIT(A). We do not find merit in the reasons for changing head of income. The object clause of Memorandum of Association clearly defines the objects of the company for which it is incorporated and the business it intends to carry. Merely, for reason that the company is not a registered NBFC cannot be reason for changing the head of income. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ) dated 09.12.2019, for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The solitary issue raise in appeal by the assessee is disallowance of interest income on Inter Corporate Deposits (ICD) and Fixed Deposits (FD) as income of the assessee under the head Profits Gains of Business or Profession , instead the Assessing Officer (AO) has held aforesaid interest income as Income from Other Sources . 3. Shri Satish Khosla, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is engaged in the business of leasing finance. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has earned interest income on Int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtization of expenses without withdrawal of the same from the assessment year in which it was first allowed to be amortized. 4. Per contra, Shri S.L. Verma representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. He submitted that the assessee was not registered NBFC, hence, the assessee could not have carried out leasing finance activity. The interest income from ICD s and FD s was thus rightly held to be income from other sources by the AO. The assessee is not carrying any business activities except for advancing of loans to the selected entities; therefore, the interest income was assessed as income from other sources. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... losed interest income on ICD s FD s as income from operations in Profit Loss account. The statement of P L account for the period ending 31.03.2013 is at page 69 of the paper book. The assessee has been consistently treating interest income on ICD s FD s as business income and has offered the same to tax as such. The Department in the preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2012-13 and the subsequent assessment years i.e. AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 has accepted interest income as business income of the assessee. Though the assessments were framed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, it was only in AY 2015-16 that assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the case of assessee. The assessee has placed on record copy of assessment order for AY 2015-16. Perusal of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is arguments only with regard to disallowance of amortized preliminary expenses. The assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 17.85 lakhs paid towards ROC fees for share application money on 09.03.2011. The assessee has amortized aforesaid expenditure over the period of five years. The first year of claim was AY 2012-13, this is a second year of claim of amortization of expenditure Rs. 1.56 lakh. The AO disallowed assessee s claim of amortization of expenses in the impugned assessment year only. In the subsequent assessment years the Department has again accepted amortization of expenditure. We find no valid reason for disallowing amortization of expenditure in the impugned assessment year when the same has been allowed in the preceding and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates