TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) was wrong in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V.OJ & Am. -V s- Deokinandan Aggarwal which had no relevance whatsoever in the facts of the appellant's case. The said decision related to the powers of the High Court in a case for retirement benefits claimed by a retired High Court Judge. b) Without prejudice to the foregoing ground, the Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the income of Rs. 5,51,362/-, if not assessable under the head 'Business', it had to be assessed under the residuary head of "Other sources" and in case it cannot be assessed under any head then it will not form part of the taxable income of the assessee. 2. FOR that, in any case, the Ld. A.O was w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight of the reply from Multi commodity Exchange of India Ltd., the claim of the Assessee that the income in question is from business cannot be accepted. The AO held that since the Assessee has failed to prove the nature and source of receipt of Rs. 5,51,362 the same cannot be considered as business income as claimed in the P & L A/C. nor under any other head of income as provided under chapter IV of the Act. He held that the sum of Rs. 5,51,362 had to be taxed separately and the Assessee will not be entitled to adjust this income with any other loss as the source of income remains un-established. 4. The computation of total income as done by the AO after the above conclusion is very important. As noticed earlier the Assessee had filed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the income in question under any of the heads of income given in Sec.14 of the Act. Income which does not fall under any other head of income had to be necessary classified under the head "Income from other sources", if the AO wants to bring the same to tax. This aspect is clear if one reads the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody Vs. CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC) wherein it was held that if income cannot be taxed under any of the heads mentioned in Sec.14 of the Act, then it cannot be taxed at all. The AO in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 5,51,362 had to be taxed separately had not made any reference to any provision of law in the Act under which he is resorting to such a course. Consequently, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t charged and similarly loans received on which interest was not paid at Pages-5, 6, & 7 of the assessment order which is set out here under. Loans given on which no interest was Charged Name Interest not charged as per AO's calculation Ajay Pugalia 26,202.73 Niraj Sadani 11,771.79 Shobha Sadani 10,580.95 Siddhi Vinayak 3,520.54 Sundarlal Makhanlal 3,008.70 Lalit Kumar Sad ani -2,791.38 Ganapati Commercial Services 2,114.60 TOTAL Rs.69,407/- Loans taken on which no interest was paid Name Interest not paid as per AO's calculation Sampurn Commodities Pvt Ltd 382.83 Sanjeev Saraf 7,364.29 Shobha Sadani 209.47 Niraj Sadani 545.35 Laxmi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an the interest not charged by the appellant on interest free loans given by it. It is not understandable as to why the A.O. has omitted to consider this interest free loan received by the Assessee while determining the amount of interest on interest free loans given by the Assessee. It was reiterated that the fact remains that there was no justification whatsoever to presume income earned from interest on certain loans which were given interest free and to treat same as undisclosed income of the Assessee. It was arged that going by the A.O's theory, which is basically illogical, the A.O. should have given deduction of Rs. 6,35,616/- for interest not paid to Correo Marketting Pvt. Ltd. which would be equally not correct. The addition....