Daily Archives: May 25, 2012

CHANCHAL KUMAR SIRCAR v ITO 2012-TIOL-268-ITAT-KOL Assessee is an individual. He filed his ROI claiming exemption under section 54EC. It was observed that the assessee had invested the amount in capital gain scheme in scattered manner which meant some amount invested by the assessee when he received part payment and the balance on the receipt of balance payment. The CIT was of the view that assessee ought to have deposited the entire amount in capital gain scheme  

Piecemeal deposits of sale proceeds eligible for Sec 54EC benefits

CIT vs. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd (Madras High Court) The assessee purchased an igni-fluid boiler from its sister concern and on the same day leased it back. The AO & CIT(A) relied on McDowell 154 ITR 148 and held the sale and lease back arrangement to be a sham & camouflage for a loan by the assessee to the sister concern and rejected the assessee’s claim for depreciation. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim on the ground that the transaction was not a “sham”. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:  

Sale & Lease Back transactions are not “sham” transactions

Sheetal Drape (India) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax-4(3)IT Appeal NO.1323 (MUM.) of 2012 (Mum ITAT) Proviso to section 36(1)(iii) provides that no interest paid shall be allowed as deduction in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which the asset was first put to use.In this provision the reference is first to the existing business and then to its extension. It does not refer to setting up an altogether different or new business. In the absence of any specific statutory meaning to the expression ‘extension of existing business’, one has to go by its meaning as understood in common parlance. Assessee shifting its business from rented office to its own Office premises acquired with borrowed funds is extension of existing business within the meaning of proviso to section 36(1)(iii) The instant case is of ‘extension of existing business’ and not that of setting up of a new business, inasmuch as by having its own premises and doing the same business, the assessee will now be in position to carry on its operation at a much wider scale in a hassle free manner. This would obviously result in extension of its existing business.

Shifting from rented to own premises is extension of business – Therefore, interest not allowable ...