Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-O9 Vs. M/s Tinna Finex Ltd.
April, 05th 2016
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 15.02.2016

+      ITA 113/2016

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-O9 ..... Appellant

                             versus

M/S TINNA FINEX LTD.                                              ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant     : Mr Zoheb Hossain and Mr Dileep Shivpuri
For the Respondent    : Mr Pranjal Srivastava


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.     This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated

26.06.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.

3584/Del/2012 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10.              The revenue is

aggrieved by the decision of the said Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal has

dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) who had deleted the addition of Rs 5,64,85,956/- made by

the Assessing Officer under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.







ITA 113/2016                                                           Page 1 of 6
2.    The respondent company is engaged in the business of finance and export.

In the year in question there was no business activity except for the receipt of

interest and some hire charges. Against the gross receipts of Rs 6,54,900/- the

respondent company claimed an expenditure of Rs 10,83,949/- resulting in a loss

of Rs 4,29,049/-.


3.    During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that an

amount of Rs 5,64,85,956/- shown as secured and unsecured loans as on

31.03.2008 in the balance sheet of the respondent company was reduced to Nil as

on 31.03.2009. The assessee was asked to explain this change and in response the

respondent / assessee indicated that this was based upon a family settlement

between the group members. The respondent / assessee submitted that no trading

transaction was involved in the writing off the said loans and, therefore, the

provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act would not be attracted.

However, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 41(1) of the said

Act and made an addition of Rs 5,64,85,956/- to the income of the assessee and

completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the said Act by virtue of his

order dated 28.12.2011.


4.    As pointed out above, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted

the addition made by the Assessing Officer and found that Section 41(1) of the

said Act was not attracted. Against the said decision, the revenue filed an appeal




ITA 113/2016                                                      Page 2 of 6
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which has been dismissed by the said

Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 26.06.2015. The Tribunal placed

reliance on, inter alia, a decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax-III

v. Shivali Construction (P) Ltd, 355 ITR 218. The Tribunal after examining the

factual circumstances observed as under:


               "8.3 After going through the provisions of section 41(1) of
               the Income-tax Act, we find that the same are not applicable
               to the facts of the assessee case. We also find that the AO has
               made the addition of Rs 5.64 crores by invoking provision of
               sec. 41(1) of the Income-tax without stating how the provision
               are applicable to the assessee's case. Mere cessation of
               liability does not result into fit case of sec. 41(1) of the I.T
               Act. Assessee has submitted that assessee was not incurred
               any loss/expenditure/trading liability which is subsequently
               recovered by him is taxable as income in the year of recovery.
               We find that the assessee is squarely covered by the following
               judgments wherein it has been held that whenever, an amount
               is borrowed towards capital account and the loan is waived
               off, the same cannot be brought to tax net either in terms of
               sec-41(1) or 28(iv) of the Act. The same observation was
               mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order at page
               no. 11 and Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the following
               cases of this issue:


                    (i)      CIT vs. Tosha International Ltd. (176
                             taxman 187) (Del.)

                    (ii)     Govind Bhai C Patel vs. DCIT (ITA No.
                             1675/AHD/2009) dated 30.10.2009 (ITAT
                             Ahmedabad)

                    (iii)    CIT vs. Phool Chand Jiwan Ram (131 ITR
                             17) (Del.)



ITA 113/2016                                                          Page 3 of 6
                    (iv)     CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. (ITA No. 172
                             of 2011 dated 18.10.2011) (Karnataka HC)

                    (v)      CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (267
                             ITR 770) (Guj.)

                    (vi)     Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (261
                             ITR 501) (Bom.)

                    (vii)    CIT-3 vs. M/s Cipla Investments Ltd. (ITA
                             No. 6988 of 2012, dated 07.02.2012) (HC of
                             Bombay)

               8.4    We further note that it is well settled law that where no
               deduction / allowance has been made in respect of loss,
               exp/liability in the assessment year or in any earlier years,
               cessation of such liability cannot be taxed under section 41(1)
               of the Income Tax Act. To Support this finding, we place
               reliance on the following judgments:-

                      i. CIT-III vs. Shivali Constructions P. Ltd. 355 ITR
                         218 dated 01.05.2013, (Delhi High Court)

                      ii.CIT-II vs. National Diary Development Board ­
                         Gujarat HC 49 Taxman.com 316 (ITA Appeal
                         No. 195 of 2014) dated 06.05.2014.

               8.5    In view of the above, we find that the AO has not
               disputed the facts brought on record by the assessee company.
               In our opinion, the liability of Rs 5,64,85,956/- as on
               01.01.2009 in favour of M/s Tinna Overseas Ltd., was no
               longer required to be paid in view of the settlement. Similarly
               the assessee had foregone the investment in the shares and
               loan totalling to Rs. 1,08,41,345/- as per the terms of the
               settlement. The net gain to the assessee is Rs 4,56,44,611/-.
               The assessee has clearly established that the adjustments are
               on capital side and there is no case for invoking provisions of







ITA 113/2016                                                          Page 4 of 6
               sec 41(1) since the liability waived by the creditor was never
               claimed as revenue expenditure.


               8.6    Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and the
               precedents, as explained aforesaid, we find considerable
               cogency in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the addition
               made by the AO cannot be sustained. Therefore, we do not
               see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A)
               on the issue in dispute, hence, we uphold the same."


5.     The Tribunal has, in our view, correctly followed the decision of this court

in CIT v. Shivali Construction (supra). The loan transactions were on the capital

account and the writing off the loan was also on capital account and did not find

place in the Profit and Loss Account. Apart from this it has been found as a matter

of fact that the respondent / assessee had not got the benefit of any allowance or

deduction in the assessment for any prior year in respect of loss, expenditure or

trading liability incurred by the respondent / assessee. Thus the cessation of the

liability by itself would not lead to the attraction of the provisions of Section 41(1)

in the subsequent year (i.e., the assessment year in question) when the liability

ceased to exist.


6.     The Tribunal having correctly applied the law and followed the decision in

Shivali Construction (supra), cannot be faulted in its decision which is impugned

before us. A similar decision of this court is also reported in Commissioner of

Income-Tax v. Tosha International Ltd, (2011) 331 ITR 440. Since the issue on




ITA 113/2016                                                           Page 5 of 6
law already stands settled by the said decisions of this court, no substantial

question of law arises for our consideration.


7.     The appeal is dismissed.

                                           BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



FEBRUARY 15, 2016                               R. K. GAUBA, J
SU




ITA 113/2016                                                   Page 6 of 6

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Organic SEO Outsourcing Organic Search Engine Optimization Outsourcing Organic Website SEO Organic SEO India Website SEO India Organic Search Engine Optimization India Organic Internet SEO India Organic Web

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions