TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows re-filing after delay, upholds disallowance of interest on borrowed capital</h1> <h3>PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, DELHI Versus M/s BHARTIYA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE & LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. PVT. LTD.</h3> PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, DELHI Versus M/s BHARTIYA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE & LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. PVT. LTD. - TMI Issues:Delay in re-filing condonation, Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed capital, Examination of interest free loans and investment, Challenge of findings, Interference with impugned order, Substantial question of law.Delay in re-filing condonation:The court condoned a 30-day delay in re-filing, allowing the application.Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed capital:The case involved an amount paid as interest on borrowed capital from sister concerns due to interest-free loans and investments in sister concerns by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal had examined the disallowance of interest during the original assessment proceedings, and the findings were not challenged as perverse or contrary to evidence. Citing legal precedents, the court held that the impugned order did not require interference.Examination of interest free loans and investment:The Tribunal had specifically considered the disallowance of interest paid in relation to interest-free loans and investments in sister concerns during the original assessment proceedings. The findings on this matter were not contested as incorrect or unsupported by evidence.Challenge of findings:The findings of the Tribunal regarding the disallowance of interest paid were not challenged before the court as being perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. As a result, the court did not find any grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.Interference with impugned order:The court determined that the impugned order did not necessitate any interference as it aligned with established legal principles and previous judgments by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. The decision was considered to be in accordance with the law laid down in relevant cases.Substantial question of law:The court concluded that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The judgment was based on the assessment that the impugned order was consistent with legal precedents and did not warrant further review.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
