TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e returned income. (b) That the entire expenditure comprising of three amounts of Rs. 96,67,557/- Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 6,94,359/- claimed by the appellant as deduction in computing its income chargeable to tax for the accounting period in question was allowable as business expenditure. The amount in question was incurred to wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee which had been set up. No part of the expenditure claimed by the assessee was required to be disallowed. (c) That in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,28,61,717/-, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the correct factual and the legal position leading to erroneous conclusion. He has failed to appreciate evidence on record which proved that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer found that the assessee has claimed expenses in the profit and loss account of director's remuneration of Rs. 3,60,000/-, interest on bank loans of Rs. 96,67,557/- and processing charges on loans of Rs. 25,00,000/- and administrative expenses of Rs. 3,34,360/-, totaling to Rs. 1,28,61,917/-. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses stating that these expenses are not related to the business of the assessee because no any business activity has been carried by the assessee during the year. 3. The appellant also earned interest on FDR for a sum of Rs. 43,58,380/-. As per records, this interest has been received by the assessee and the FDRs were used for the purpose of taking bank guarantee for obtaining license from HUDA. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscellaneous receipts of Rs. 3680/-. The Assessing Officer denied these claims of assessee. The matter travelled upto the stage of Hon'ble High Court wherein Hon'ble High court has accepted the claim of the assessee vide order dated 11.12.2013 (ITA No. 506/2013) placed on paper book page 61 to 67. He, therefore contended that the authorities below are not justified to disallow the similar claim of assessee during the year under consideration. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd., 335 ITR 132 (Del.) wherein it was held that the interest income earned by the assessee on FDR was business income. The FDR given for obtaining the license from HUDA as per their requirem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no need to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the ld. AR placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in its own case for the assessment year 2008-09, which squarely covers the issue for this year except the three heads of expenditure, which has been claimed by the assessee as new items during this year : (i). Directors remuneration Rs.3,60,000/- (ii). Interest on Bank loans Rs.96,67,557/- (iii). Processing charges on loans Rs.25,00,000/- 9. As regards directors remuneration debited in the profit and loss account for a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- we find that it was for the purpose of business. The direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant has filed before the Assessing Officer the source of loan and its utilization, in which he has clearly stated that the loan has been given for the purchase of land whereas no land has been purchased during the year. The term loan has been taken from Union Bank of India and the same has not been utilized for the purpose of business. After analyzing the balance sheet of the company, we find that there is no vast difference between the figures of balance sheet as compared to the previous year except schedule-9 relating to loans and advances (advances recoverable in cash or in kind), which has been increased by Rs. 8,44,28,188/- in asset side of the balance sheet and in schedule 2, secured loans has been enhanced by Rs. 8,17,55,868/- at ....