{"id":3074,"date":"2018-12-07T09:07:48","date_gmt":"2018-12-07T09:07:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/l-t-finance-ltd-v-dy-cit-2018-258-taxman-282-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2018-12-07T09:07:48","modified_gmt":"2018-12-07T09:07:48","slug":"l-t-finance-ltd-v-dy-cit-2018-258-taxman-282-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/l-t-finance-ltd-v-dy-cit-2018-258-taxman-282-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"L &#038; T Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 282 (Bom.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span lang=\"EN-US\">Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that ; assessee NBFC was engaged in business of leasing, hire purchase and other financial activities, which securitized certain amount as rent receivables from April 2002 to March 2004 and adjusted a part of said amount against rent receivable in its books of account and balance amount was recognized as a profit on securitization of lease receivables in its profit &amp; loss account . Amount credited to profit and loss account is held to be assessable as business income .Contention that it was notional gain was rejected . As regards\u00a0the contention of the assessee that<b><\/b><\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u00a0the &#8220;matching concept&#8221; was not applied by the authorities below. \u00a0Court held that in fact, on going through the orders passed by the authorities below, the &#8220;matching concept&#8221; was never even argued or raised before them. Therefore, this argument can never give rise to a substantial question of law in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (AY. 2002-03 , 2003-04)<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 28(i) : Business income \u2013Engaged in business of leasing, hire purchase and other financial activities &#8211; Amount was recognized as a profit on securitization of lease receivables in its profit &#038; loss account \u2013 Assessable as business income -Matching concept was never even argued or raised before the Tribunal or raised before the High Court cannot be raised first time while arguing  before the High Court. [ S.145, 260A ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-NA","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}