If the investments are not made from borrowed funds, then there should not be any disallowance. Since in this case it was evidenced from the records and evidence s that the income accured was from internal accruals consequently addition deleted
The first arguments which has been considered was regarding the source of advances in the 100% subsidiary comapy, which the assessee company argued to be out of reservs and suplus, which could not be contradicted by the Revenue.
In the Case of ACIT v Akhil Jain, ITAT Delhi held that no interest will be levied u/s 234B during the Block Assessment by the virtue of Section 158BF.
Hon’ble Tribunal held that whenever the consideration is received in advance for the particular sale, The money will be taxed in the year in which the sale is made and not in the assessment year in which the advances are received.
TechNVision Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, where claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held in the light of the main provisions of section 43B read with Explanations 3C and 3D that the interest payable to banks and other financial institutions can be allowed as deduction only ‘if such interest has been actually paid
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that the appellant failed to produce proof in support of dispatch of Form 15H to the CIT, this by itself does not entail any addition. It was only technical breach of law and the act provides for separate penal provisions for such default.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that the claim has been denied merely because the AO has treated the transaction as speculative loss. This cannot be any reason for declining the claim of rebate u/s. 88E of the Act as the claim is allowable from the business income be it speculative or not.
In this case ITAT examined the issue whether fee paid to golf club on behalf of director to develop links with other corporates leaders is an allowable business expenditure. On the basis of other judicial pronouncement ITAT decided this question in favour of assessee.
Delhi ITAT held in the case of Smt. Rutu Jindal Vs. ACIT, that if no statement has been recorded at the time of search and where there is no occasion for the assessee to state the fact at the time of search, the addition can not be made without taking in to account the fact of the case which is stated during the appellate proceedings.
