Amadeus Global Travel Distribution Sa ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 November, 2007
On query in this regard, ld.
counsel of the assessee submitted that there was no rate of interest
specified and there was no resolution also by the said company for
grant of fresh loan. The purpose for which the amount of loan was
specified is also not being spelt out. In these circumstances, when
there are no document whatsoever to support the veracity of the
said loan transaction of the said company, in our considered opinion,
the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not
sustainable. Reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of SA Builders vs. C.I.T. reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) does not
support the assessee's case on the facts and the circumstances of the
case. In the present case, assessee has given a sum of ` 25,00,000/-
to the subsidiary company, there is no loan agreement, no rate of
interest specified and no resolution for advancing of the amount and
no specification and the purpose for which the loan was to be utilized.
In these circumstances, it is clear that it cannot be said that advance
was made for the purpose of business of the assessee and that it was
related to the business of the assessee. Hence, we set aside the order
7
ITA NO. 3340/DEL/2010
of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore that of
Assessing Officer on this issue. Thus the disallowance of ` 25,00,000/-
by the Assessing Officer is upheld.