9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACIT v. Nishith Desai [ 2017 (8) TMI 364 - ITAT MUMBAI] we note that the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the interest expenditure as deduction u/s 57 of the Act by holding the said interest expenditure was for expending wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the interest income. Tribunal further observed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is justified as the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [ 1978 (10) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT] supports the said view. Therefore, we find the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances before the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Nishith Desai [supra] but, however, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is an individual and Director of Thangamayil Jewellery Limited. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has shown interest from saving bank account and interest from Thangamayil Jewellery Limited under the head income from other sources and claimed the same as deduction under section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. It was explained that the assessee availed loan from LIC, ICICI Bank Ltd. and LIC-HFL, given the said loan amount to M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery Limited as a loan and earned interest thereon. The assessee claimed the interest paid to the said three entities as deduction under section 57 of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the names on loan documents did not match with name of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting in debentures. He argued that in the present case also, the assessee availed loan from banks, etc. and the same was transferred to M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery Limited and interest earned thereon, which clearly shows nexus in earning interest income from M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery Limited out of borrowed loans. He argued that the order of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Further, he placed on record assessment order in the case of another partner and submits that similar expenditure on interest paid to banks, etc. were allowed as deduction under section 57 of the Act. He drew our attention to para 2 and 4 of the said order and prayed to allow the interest expenditure under section 57 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for different purposes. 7. On perusal of the assessment order in the case of Balarama Govinda Das, who is stated to be other partner of the assessee, we note that deduction under section 57 of the Act was allowed basing on same facts and circumstances, which are reflecting in para 5 and 6 of the said order. The ld. DR stated that the issue may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination in terms of the assessment in the case of Balarama Gonvida Das. The ld. AR objected to the same and requested to pass order in terms of the order of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Nishith Desai (supra). 8. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Nishith Desai (supra), we note that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
