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>High Court rules loan principal remission not taxable benefit under Section 28(iv)</h1> <h3>Modern Syntex (india) Ltd. Through Its Senior Vice President Sh R.D. Agarwal S/o Shri Devi Das Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, Jaipur and Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Versus M/s Modern Threads (I) Ltd.</h3> The High Court reversed the tribunal's decision on the remission of a loan principal amount, holding that it did not constitute a benefit or perquisite ... Remission of principal amount of loan obtained from financial institutions and banks - whether constitutes a benefit or perquisite arising from business and would fall within the ambit of Section 28(iv)? - Held that:- Even otherwise the loan which was taken was capital investment and always treated in the capital account as liability and if it is so, it will naturally go as wiping out the capital liability. See Modern Denim Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of IT Jaipur [2017 (4) TMI 1287 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] In that view of the matter, the contention taken by the appellant is required to be accepted. The view taken by the CIT(A) is required to be restored and that of the tribunal is required to be reversed.In view of the above, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Issues:Challenge to tribunal's judgment on remission of principal amount of loan under Section 28(iv) of the Act.Analysis:The High Court admitted two appeals challenging the tribunal's judgment on remission of loan principal amount. One appeal was by the assessee and the other by the department. The substantial questions of law framed in both appeals revolved around whether the remission of the loan principal amount constitutes a benefit or perquisite under Section 28(iv) of the Act. The appellant contended that the issue was settled by a prior decision of the court in a similar case. The department, on the other hand, relied on a Delhi High Court decision to support its position on the matter.The court considered various judgments, including those of the Bombay High Court, Madras High Court, and Gujarat High Court, to analyze the interpretation of Section 28(iv) of the Act. It was highlighted that the provision applies to benefits or perquisites arising from business, excluding cash or money benefits. The court examined the nature of the benefit or perquisite in question to determine its applicability under Section 28(iv) of the Act.The department supported the tribunal's judgment by citing a Supreme Court decision regarding the treatment of statutory levies and refunds in trading transactions. Another Supreme Court decision was referenced to emphasize that amounts received in the course of trading transactions could change character and be treated as income under certain circumstances.After hearing arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the loan in question was a capital investment and always treated as a liability in the capital account. Therefore, the court accepted the appellant's contention, reversed the tribunal's decision, and restored the CIT(A)'s view. Consequently, the issues in both appeals were decided in favor of the assessee and against the department. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, while that of the department was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
