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>Tribunal allows appeal on interest deduction for future project, directs correct income figure consideration.</h1> <h3>Lala Bansi Dhar & Sons Versus ACIT, Circle 38 (1), New Delhi.</h3> Lala Bansi Dhar & Sons Versus ACIT, Circle 38 (1), New Delhi. - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of interest paid on loan for a future project against interest received on cancellation of booking.2. Adoption of incorrect figure of income under the head 'Income from Other Sources.'3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Issue 1: Disallowance of interest paid on loan for a future project against interest received on cancellation of booking:The case involved an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of interest paid on a loan taken for a future project against interest received on cancellation of booking. The assessee argued that the interest earned had a direct nexus with the interest paid and should be allowed as a deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest paid, stating that there was no nexus between the expenditure and income earned. The Tribunal observed that the loan was utilized for investment in a flat, and there was a direct connection between the interest paid and earned. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the assessee was entitled to netting the interest received against the interest expenditure incurred.Issue 2: Adoption of incorrect figure of income under the head 'Income from Other Sources':The second issue pertained to the incorrect adoption of the income figure under the head 'Income from Other Sources' by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the correct figure was different from what was assessed by the AO, but the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on this ground. The Tribunal noted the disparity in figures and directed that the correct income figure should be considered, emphasizing the importance of accurate assessment under the relevant head.Issue 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act:The third issue revolved around the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee challenged the AO's decision to uphold the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, indicating that the penalty proceedings aspect was not a focal point of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee concerning the disallowance of interest paid on a loan for a future project, emphasizing the direct nexus between the interest paid and earned. The correct income figure under the head 'Income from Other Sources' was directed to be considered. However, the issue regarding penalty proceedings was not explicitly discussed in the judgment.
TaxTMI 