TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to the facts of the case and law applicable to it. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance to the extent of Rs. 32,80,8221- being the interest on borrowed capital which was allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in giving a finding that, the appellant had not commenced the business and hence the interest expenses is not allowable, ignoring the fact that, the appellant was already setup and ready for business and under the circumstances, the interest expenses could not have been disallowed. 4. The learned Commissioner of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the company was incorporated and the expenditure was in the nature of running expenses to keep the company in operation and hence allowable as revenue. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the appellant has declared income under the head other sources and if the expenditure is not allowable under the head business, should have been allowed under the head other sources, since the expenditure was revenue in nature and required for day to day running of the company. 11. It The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the ratio taid down by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es bank Rs. 49 lakhs and there is no inventory or stock in trade. As per P&L account available at page 12 of the paper book, the assessee is showing income of Rs. 3,44,869/- on account of interest on FDs and the activity in respect of purchase of shares of various companies is not shown as purchase and closing stock in trade. Specific query was raised by the Bench and in reply it was submitted by the ld AR of the assessee that there is no stock in trade and in my considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the assessee is doing any business activity and any income is to be taxed under the head 'income from business'. Therefore, no deduction is allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) in respect of interest paid by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the AO on this basis that the assessee has not commenced the business ignoring the fact that there were some activities for business and therefore, expenditure is allowable. My attention was drawn to page No.12 of the paper book regarding details of expenditures and it was pointed out that this includes Rent Rs. 65,419/-, Salary and Wages Rs. 56,000/- and Bank charges Rs. 238/-. In this regard, my attention was drawn to page Nos.7 and 8 of the paper book, where the written submissions are made in respect of this issue. The assessee has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements at page 8 of the paper book :- i) CIT Vs. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd., (1991) 192 ITR 151 (SC) ii) SPPS Systems (P) Ltd.,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the lookout of the persons to whom it could be let out and it had been able to get customer and it had carried out repairs/installation etc., and taken other steps in the premises for converting from residential house into business accommodation in line with the requirements of the customer and under this facts, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court in that case that the assesee's business has commenced but in the present case, the facts are totally different. It is seen that in the present case, no activity was undertaken by the assessee which can be said to be business activity. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, this judgment is rendering no help to the assessee. 12. The second judgment cited is of the Tribunal rendered in ....