PRANIDHI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/RAN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 June 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's initial finding of cancelled registrations was erroneous, as subsequent verification confirmed the companies were active. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed interest paid on unsecured loans from 14 companies, alleging their registrations were cancelled. The assessee provided MCA certificates showing the companies were active, which the Assessing Officer later verified and confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans is justified when the creditor companies were found to be active.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR
Hearing: 11/06/2025Pronounced: 11/06/2025

Assessee represented by Sri R.R. Mittal, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 11/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 11/06/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna in appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/10307/2017-18 dated 30/09/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

Shri R.R. Mittal, ld A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the interest paid on unsecured loans taken from 14 companies as mentioned in page No. 2 and 3 of the assessment order. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer had in para 3.1.2 of his order, held that the assessee company is found to have made transactions with the above said companies, whose registrations reported to have been cancelled by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The ld. Authorised Representative had placed before

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →