SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BEAWAR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was incorrect. It was found that the borrowed funds were partly used for business purposes, making the proportionate interest expenditure allowable as a business expense. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not disposed of the assessee's objections before passing the reassessment order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed interest expenses, claiming they were excessively claimed against income from other sources. The assessee argued that the borrowed funds were used for business purposes and the claim was an error in head allocation.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to non-disposal of objections and the allowability of interest expenses claimed against business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 57(3),Section 139(1),Section 143(3),Section 56
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO1,349 citing259 ITR 19 · 2003 · SC · Read judgment
- Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT154 citing242 ITR 450 · 2002 · SC
- Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO87 citing256 Taxmann 59 · 2018 · SC
- Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO56 citing404 ITR 611 · 2018 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH VC ’SMC’, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAOvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1219/JP/2019
The Appellant- Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Ajmer.
The Respondent – The ITO Ward 1, Beawar. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 1219/JP/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Anil Khubchandani, Ulhasnagar vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Mumbai20 Sept 2018Allowed
Also relies on Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections against the reopening and did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of waiting four we...
- M/S. Laxmi Rolling and Strips Private… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(1), BangaloreBangalore28 Jan 2020Remanded
Also relies on Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the AO is bound to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment by passing a speaking order. Since this procedure was not followed, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
- ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs Emaar Hills Township Private Limited…Hyderabad31 Jul 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment by way of a speaking order renders the assessment proceedings invalid. This decision followed ...
- ITO, New Delhi vs Shri Umesh Upadhyay, New DelhiDelhi19 Mar 2019Dismissed
Also relies on Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the sweat equity shares did not constitute taxable income as perquisites in the assessment year in question. The addition made by the AO was based on hypothetical income and flawed valuation.
- Income Tax Officer-6(4), Lucknow vs Shri Zarrar Hussain, LucknowLucknow30 Aug 2022Allowed
Also relies on Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because the reasons for reopening were not furnished to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, despite the assessee's request. This failure vitiate...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
