2016 (8) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the business of silk textile business. However, the manufacturing had been discontinued, the appellant continued to do some trading transaction. The appellant had also started new business of land development and where he had claimed set off of loss carry forward of loss. 2.1 As the assessment order was passed, it has been held by the A.O. that the appellant is not entitled to claim of set off of carry forward of loss of the old business against the new business as the new business has not started. The A.O. while passing the assessment order made some additions and has not allowed interest and administrative expenses and also made addition on the ground of short term capital gain. 2.2 The appellant carried the matter before the CIT(A), wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... interest paid to the Director and other expenses incurred during the year are not allowable deductions against other income of the assessee?" 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the relevant extract from Commentry of Chaturvedi & Pithisaria and further contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bokaro Steel Ltd., [236 ITR 315] the accrual of income and principle of real income can replace. 4.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant has also taken this Court to the arrangement which has been arrived between the company and the Bank on 16/04/1981 whereby the Union Bank of India has agreed to in full and final settlement of total due of Rs. 110.00 Lacs on 30/12/1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and has rightly not been granted by the authorities. He has further contended that in view of the concurrent finding of the authorities below, this Court may not interfere with the same. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. So far as the question No.1 paused for our consideration is concerned, looking to the facts on record and in view the fact that amendment in the Memorandum of Article was made, we are of the opinion that the company has utilized its property, which was available in the books of account, as also the company has tried to come out from the gross expenditure and another activity is carried out. However, the nature of business may be different but that would not make the appellant d....