SMT. POOJA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
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 interest paid to a partnership firm where the assessee is a partner is a business expenditure and thus allowable. It also held that a difference in jewellery valuation solely due to rate fluctuations between wealth tax returns and the search date, without a difference in quantity, is not a valid basis for addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income was Nil, but after a search, the assessment was completed at Rs. 21,19,511. The assessee appealed against additions made by the AO and confirmed partly by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether interest paid to a partnership firm by a partner is an allowable business expenditure, and whether a difference in jewellery valuation based only on rate changes is a valid addition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)- XXXIII, New Delhi dated 28.10.2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 454540/- made on account of disallowance of interest.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 507826/- on account of difference in the valuation of jewellery which is illegal. Therefore, the same is liable to be deleted.”
3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed her return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring Nil income. Search u/s 132 was carried out on 21.01.2011 in DS group cases. The assessee is one of the family members of that group. The assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 153 was passed on 18.03.2013 at Rs. 2119511/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On the addition sustained the assessee is in appeal before us.
Pooja Gupta Vs DCIT, (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 4. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the addition of Rs. 454540/- for disallowance of interest. During the year the assessee has claimed payment of interest of Rs. 514197/- on various loans. It has also paid interest of Rs. 404540/- to a partnership firm where the assessee is a partner. As the interest paid to partnership firm is not related to earning of any income the ld AO disallowed the same. Further, with respect to the balance expenditure of interest of Rs. 109657/- the ld AO held that the assessee did not gave the complete utilization of the loan and therefore, he estimated the expenditure of Rs. 50000/- disallowable. Consequently, Rs. 454540/- was disallowed. On appeal before the ld CIT(A) the above disallowance was confirmed.
5. The ld AR submitted that as the assessee has paid interest to the partnership firm in which the assessee is a partner, the interest is allowable. He further referred to the provision of section 28(v) of the Act wherein, such income is chargeable to tax as business income. He therefore, submitted that if interest is paid same is also a business loss/ expenditure incurred during the year, hence, it should be allowed.
6. The ld DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and find that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 404540/- to the various partnership firm where the assessee is a partner. The income from sum received by the assessee as interest is chargeable to tax under the head business income u/s 28(v) of the Act. Therefore, even if any negative income i.e. expenditure is incurred by the assessee same should also be computed under the head profit and gains of the business or profession. It is not the case of the ld AO that the provision of section 14A are applied to it. It is also not the case of the ld AO that money is not borrowed for the purpose of the business. He merely held that payment of interest to firm is not related to earning of any income which is chargeable to tax. Even otherwise on looking at the assessment order we do not find that the assessee has any exempt income. Therefore, provision of section 14A
More judgments on Section 28(v)
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Zydus Lifesciences Limited, AhmedabadITA 557/AHD/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Vidya Vivek Padgaonkar, Andher West vs Income Tax Officer 34 3 5, Bandra Kurla…ITA 3042/MUM/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2026AY 2024-25
- Tom George, Palakkad vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps…ITA 492/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
- Atul Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs ITO, Ward- 43(1), DelhiITA 3516/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
- Paltex, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 24(3)(1) Mumbai, MumbaiITA 1301/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026