Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee borrowed loans from financial institutions at an interest rate of 12.75% and advanced loans to group companies or relatives at 12% interest rate. The assessee restricted the claim of interest expense u/s 57 to 12%, being the interest earned. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revision u/s 263, disallowing the interest income, concluding the assessee failed to substantiate the nexus between the interest-bearing loans taken and advances made. The PCIT also held the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly added unexplained cash credits to income without considering the assessee's submissions. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed the assessee disclosed rental income correctly. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., the ITAT held the PCIT failed to demonstrate the AO's order was erroneous due to inadequate inquiry. The AO conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind. No prejudice was caused to the Revenue. The PCIT's order was unsustainable in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The assessee borrowed loans from financial institutions at an interest rate of 12.75% and advanced loans to group companies or relatives at 12% interest rate. The assessee restricted the claim of interest expense u/s 57 to 12%, being the interest earned. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revision u/s 263, disallowing the interest income, concluding the assessee failed to substantiate the nexus between the interest-bearing loans taken and advances made. The PCIT also held the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly added unexplained cash credits to income without considering the assessee's submissions. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed the assessee disclosed rental income correctly. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., the ITAT held the PCIT failed to demonstrate the AO's order was erroneous due to inadequate inquiry. The AO conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind. No prejudice was caused to the Revenue. The PCIT's order was unsustainable in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
