Case Law Details
Deegee Software (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
As long as the ‘annual value’ of a property can be determined under 23, there would be no embargo, as regards claim of ‘interest on borrowed capital’ under section 24(b). Though a restriction as regards the quantum of deduction, is provided in the first proviso of section 24, however, nothing emerges from the statute, which therein contemplates, the jeopardizing of the claim of the assessee towards interest on borrowed capital, in a situation, where though the property was in existence during part of the year, but thereafter had ceased to exist during the remaining part of the year.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
2. The 1st ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.85,19,732/- claimed by the assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
