Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Sec. 28(i) of Income-tax Act, 1961 -Business income - The appeal is directed against the common order of CIT(A) for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2012-13 before ITAT saying that CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of disallowing the actual loss of Rs. 8,61,13,095 arising due to payments made by appellant towards premature termination of the securitization agreement with Axis Bank (earlier UTI Bank), an unrelated party. ITAT allowed the appeal of the revenue holding that :- The Revenue cannot sit in arm chair of businessman to question each and every business decision, unless malice, fraud or is a tax evasion device is shown by Revenue. The onus is on AO to show that this loss claimed by assessee is tainted with malice, fraud or is a tax evasion device adopted by asses. Thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for limited verification of working computation of claim of loss of Rs. 8.61 crores claimed by assessee. - L&T HOUSING FINANCE LTD. V/s DY. CIT - [2020] 203 TTJ 835 (ITAT-CHENNAI)