TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) erred in treating in interest income as business income without appreciating that no business activity was carried out during the year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,54,965/- without appreciating the fact that no business activity was carried out by the assessee during the year. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made of account of interest from Rs.29,37,825/- to Rs.6,09,665/- without considering the fact that as per TDS certificate the interest income pertained to A.Y. 2009-10. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A). 3.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the AO has not made any inquiry or verification to arrive at his finding that interest income of Rs.35,47,231/- was to be treated as 'income from other sources'. As mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) in the assessee's own case for the AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the AO has accepted the contention of the assessee that the income of investing and financing be assessable as income from business. The need for consistency has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). In view of the above facts, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the 1st ground of appeal. 4. We move t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditure. The assessee had claimed deduction of revenue expenses of Rs.8,54,965/- (Rs.12,49,965 - Rs.3,95,000). Considering the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) thus deleted the disallowance of Rs.8,54,965/- made by the AO. 4.2 Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the assessee was not registered as a NBFC during the relevant period and the AO has rightly made a disallowance of Rs.8,54,965/-. 4.3 On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. A company may not obtain, or able to execute, a single business contract for months and yet it may be deemed to carry on its business, if during the period of lull and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the interest receipts of Rs.26,90,478/-, Rs.53,699/- and Rs.1,50,000/- from M/s Patel Engineering, M/s Samrat Gems Pvt. Ltd. and Amrfina Construction Ltd. respectively should not be brought to tax. Also it is observed by the AO that the assessee failed to explain the short fall of interest receipts of Rs.53,309/- from Shri Sanjay Jagdish Joshi. The total amount comes to Rs.29,47,486/-. Because of the above facts the AO brought to tax the total interest of Rs.29,47,486/- as 'income from other sources'. 5.1 In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 24.09.2014 at para 3.3.7 held as under: "Therefore, from the record it is evident that the interest of Rs.20,80,817/- out of Rs.26,90,478/- an account of interest received from Patel Engineer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/- out of Rs.26,90,478/-. Also the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition of the balance amount of Rs.6,09,661/- being the amount of TDS deposited by the payer namely Patel Engineering Ltd. during the AY 2009-10. Thus we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground and dismiss the 3rd ground of appeal. 6. We finally come to the 4th ground of appeal. The AO vide notice dated 21.07.2011 asked the assessee to file details of TDS, name and address of the deductees, copies of TDS returns, date of credit/payment and date of deposit of TDS. As the assessee failed to file the said details, the AO held the expenditures including interest paid as disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia) without prejudice to the fact that these expenses were hel....