Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
On fresh examination of the capital bond agreement, the ITAT found that clause 5 created a binding obligation on the assessee to pay accrued interest to Prestige. Because the bond funds were provided by Prestige and the related interest income had been assessed in the assessee's hands, the corresponding interest liability was deductible as an allowable expenditure. The earlier view that no enforceable obligation existed was rejected, and the disallowance of interest paid to Prestige was directed to be deleted. The appeals were allowed to that extent.
On fresh examination of the capital bond agreement, the ITAT found that clause 5 created a binding obligation on the assessee to pay accrued interest to Prestige. Because the bond funds were provided by Prestige and the related interest income had been assessed in the assessee's hands, the corresponding interest liability was deductible as an allowable expenditure. The earlier view that no enforceable obligation existed was rejected, and the disallowance of interest paid to Prestige was directed to be deleted. The appeals were allowed to that extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
