Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2016 (8) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tters on 29.04.2009, the following substantial questions of law was framed by the Court for consideration :- "Whether the Appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee company is not a finance company within the meaning of Section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act?" 3. The brief facts of the case are as under :- The assessment u/s. 8(3) r.w.s. 10 of the Interest Tax Act were finalized on 28.03.2003 in the case of the assessee on a total income of Rs. 75,33,688/- after making for the assessment year : 1998-1999, addition on account of interest of Rs. 52,05,601/-, addition on account of bill discounting charges of Rs. 18,42,606/- and addition on account of hire purchase charges of Rs. 4,85,461/-. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it is submitted that this Court should interfere in the order dated 26.10.2007 of the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee has submitted that the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the assessee cannot be a company chargeable under the Interest Tax Act. Relevant part of the findings of the Tribunal which as under :- "11. The Tribunal in the case of Pinnacle Finance Ltd. (supra) held in para-5 of its order that none of the activities being more than 50% of the cumulative percentage being 58.67% cannot be said to be exclusively and exclusively or almost exclusively so as to invoke the provisions of section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax A....