If second borrowing has really been used to repay the original loan and this fact is proved to the satisfaction of AO, interest paid on the second loan would also be allowed as deduction under section 24.
A reader should be able to come to his / her own conclusion by applying the legislative enactments and judicial pronouncements to the facts of the case. While re-producing any portion of legislative enactment or judicial pronouncement, it is para phrased and emphasis is supplied by way of underline.
When the Assessing Officer has not accepted the consent of the assessee in toto then the said consent cannot be applied as a Doctrine of estoppels against the assessee and the assessee has a legal right to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority.
In M/s. Peoples Education Society Vs. DCIT(E), the ITAT, Bengaluru held that the assessee- society is not entitled to exemption in respect of investment in fixed asset using loan amount under section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Having held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) shall have retrospective effect the question arises that if the recipients of interest in question have already considered the same for computing their income offered to tax then the dis allowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not attracted.
In P.G Sunandamma Vs. ITO, the ITAT, Bangalore, held that the transfer of excise license to a member of HUF on death of Karta cannot be reason to assess HUFs income in the hands of that individual member.
Vision EL Tech & Services (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) From the details filed it is observed that there are several instances of fresh investment as well as sale of investment in shares, evidencing frequent movement in the assessee’s investment portfolio and accordingly it cannot be accepted that no expenditure has been incurred by […]
When the amount which was deposited in the bank was not an amount due to members and it was not the liability of the society to the members then the interest earned from the deposits in the bank was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P (1) as well as 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
In Shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, the ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the expenditure incurred in relation to issuance of debentures as it constitute revenue expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The two beneficiaries were minors and therefore the assessing officer has arrived at an income of Rs. 3,65,040/- as income includable under section 64(1A) of the Act. As the income of the Trust depends on the claim of expenditure made by the co-owners, the working of assessing officer in the assessment order is fair and reasonable.
