Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Assessee's Appeal Partially Allowed: Interest Expenditure Disallowed, Business Income Estimation Revised

        The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (2), Bangalore Versus M/s. JSR Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and Vica-Versa

        The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (2), Bangalore Versus M/s. JSR Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and Vica-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Invocation of Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        2. Disallowance of interest expenditure.
        3. Capitalization of interest expenditure related to work-in-progress.
        4. Rejection of books of account and estimation of business income.
        5. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Invocation of Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
        The assessee challenged the invocation of Section 144 by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the best judgment assessment confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). The AO invoked Section 144 due to the assessee's failure to produce books of account and other required details during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee's non-compliance left the AO with no choice but to proceed with the best judgment assessment. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground on this issue.

        2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:
        The AO disallowed Rs. 55,95,000 of interest expenditure, arguing that the assessee had advanced interest-free loans to various parties while incurring interest on borrowed funds. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this disallowance. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the loans advanced. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., the Tribunal held that a presumption arises that interest-free funds were used for the advances. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure.

        3. Capitalization of Interest Expenditure Related to Work-in-Progress:
        The AO disallowed Rs. 1,78,91,526 of interest expenditure, arguing it should be capitalized as it pertained to work-in-progress. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, noted that the work-in-progress was part of the assessee's current assets and not capital assets. Referring to Accounting Standard AS-2, which excludes interest and borrowing costs from inventory costs, the Tribunal ruled that the interest should be charged to the profit & loss account as a period cost. Thus, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO.

        4. Rejection of Books of Account and Estimation of Business Income:
        The AO rejected the assessee's books of account due to non-production and estimated the business income at 8% of total contract receipts. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed this estimation. The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's previous assessment years, the net profit rates accepted were much lower (1.7% and 2.21%). Citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Deluxe Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the average net profit rate of the preceding two years and apply it to the gross receipts for the current assessment year, thus partly allowing the assessee's ground.

        5. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
        The AO added Rs. 1,14,31,582 under Section 41(1), arguing that certain sundry creditors had ceased to exist. The CIT(Appeals) deleted this addition, stating that the mere non-payment did not imply cessation of liability. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the liabilities had ceased. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that once profits were estimated under Section 144, no further addition under Section 41(1) could be made. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the disallowances related to interest expenditure and directing a revised estimation of business income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the addition under Section 41(1).

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found