Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2012 (12) TMI 822

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellant. Vikas Jain for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals are directed against the three orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 19.08.2011 for the Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The question of law sought to be urged on behalf of the Revenue is: "Whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the discounting charges earned by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eated all these amounts, i.e. the bill discounting fees earned by the assessee as interest income on the loans extended by the assessee to its customers. The CIT (Appeal) on being approached by the assessee confirmed the order of the AO. the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the assessee, analysed the nature of discounting services provided by the assessee to its customers and applied its ratio in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t under sec. 234B of the Act. Since, we have deleted the main addition in respect of taxability of discounting charges as interest income. This issue in the light of our observations would require to be readjudicated. In other words, it is consequential in nature." 3. This Court notices that in the decision of the Court confirming the previous ruling of the Tribunal (reported as CIT v. Cargill ....