Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
