SPECTRUM VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1207/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 October 2017AY 2006-072 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It upheld the decision that interest from a single advance is taxable under 'other sources' and related expenses are allowable under Section 57(iii).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07 was dismissed ex-parte as no one appeared for the assessee. The CIT(A) had held that a single advance does not constitute regular business and interest is taxable under 'other sources'.

What were the issues?

Whether interest from a single advance is taxable as business income or under 'other sources', and the allowability of related expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM]

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-17, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2006-07.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice. Hence this case is decided exparte qua the assessee.

3.

I find that the First Appellate Authority has passed an order on merits. He held that a single advance given by the assessee cannot constitute regular business. Accordingly he held that the interest is taxable under the head “other sources” The expenses relatable to such expenditure is allowable u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 19061 (Act).

4.

The ld. CIT(A) at para 4 held as follows :- “IV. Ground No.2 : “For that the action of the Le. AO acting as a judicial Authority, assessing the total income of the assessee company by making addition of Rs.185387/- u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as non-business expenses in is arbitrary, bad, erroneous, excessive, and unjustified in facts and circumstances of the case. “ – Mahesh Kumar Singhania (HUF) A.Y.2013-14 2 I do not find any infirmity in this order. Hence this appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

5.

In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 31.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →