2015 (4) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing interest paid Rs. 4,53,210 as having no nexus with the interest income earned.     2. The learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the facts that the funds borrowed from individual lenders have been advanced to M/s. SSAPL and has earned interest income on funds so borrowed.     3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the ground of appeal of not allowing profession fees paid Rs. 3,750 without assigning any reasons." 2. Facts in brief:- The Assessee is an individual having income from salary as a director of the company M/s. Sanghvi Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Besides this, she is also having inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... given in the following manner:- Interest received from M/s. Sanghavi Shoe Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 492757 Other interest from Bond, etc. Rs. 82396 Total Interest Income Rs. 575153 Less: Interest, etc. paid to Principal Rs. 900000 J.S. Mehta @ 18% Rs. 161260     Rs. 250000 N.M. Mehta (HUF) @ 18% Rs. 37725     Rs. 250000 J.S. Mehta (HUF) @ 18% Rs. 31931     Rs. 1000000 Vinoda Trivedi @ 15% Rs. 149999     Rs. 250000 R.A. Trivedi @ 15% Rs. 31438     - Jayantilal Investment @ 15% Rs. 36287 Rs. 448640   Rs. 2650000 Net interest income Rs. 126513   4. The learned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....008 11,50,000 14.03.2008 2,50,000 N.M. Mehta HUF     14.03.2008 5,00,000       14.03.2008 4,00,000     11,50,000   11,50,000   28.03.2008 1,00,000 25.03.2008 2,50,000 J.S. Mehta HUF 28.03.2008 2,50,000 25.03.2008 2,50,000 R.A. Trivedi HUF 02.04.2008 12,50,000 27.03.2008 10,00,000 V.R. Trivedi   16,00,000   15,00,000     6. Thus, he submitted that there is a direct nexus between the loan taken and the loan given and, therefore, the interest paid should be allowed under section 57(iii). He further clarified that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while taki....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per the details given above. The assessee's case has been that she has given loan of sums aggregating to Rs. 27,50,000, to the said company out of loan taken from five persons for sums aggregating to Rs. 26,50,000 (as per the details mentioned above). On these loans, she had paid interest of Rs. 4,48,640, which has been claimed as deduction for the purpose of earning of the interest income. On a perusal of the interest income, as filed before us, which has also been noted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that on 14th March 2008, the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 11.50 lakhs which was credited in the bank account of the assessee on 17th March 2008. On 17th March 2008 itself, an amount of Rs. 8,30,000, was debited by way of ....