Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 294 - ITAT DELHIDeletion of disallowance of interest – Interest free advance given – Held that:- The CIT(A) has recorded the finding that the advances were for the purpose of business because the assessee is in the business of real estate, share trading etc. and these advances were given for the purpose of purchase of property or as share application money - There is no nexus of the borrowed money with these advances and the own funds available with the assessee - the interest free advance is coming from preceding years and no disallowance was made in the preceding years in which the advance was given – thus, there was no infirmity in order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act – Held that:- The CIT(A) held that Rule 8D is not applicable - he directed the Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance under Section 14A, if any, having regard to proximity of the expenses to earn the income which did not part form of the total income – The decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT - [2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court] followed – Decided against Revenue. Deletion made u/s 50C of the Act - Full value of consideration – Valuation of Building – Held that:-It is not clear that the assessee objected to the stamp duty valuation of both the flats or one flat only - If he objected to the valuation of both the flats, then why the matter was referred to the DVO only for one flat - If the matter was referred to the DVO for both the flats, then what about the valuation of the second flat - All these questions arise because in the order of the Assessing Officer, there is no mention of the valuation report of even first flat – Thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for verification of the record – Decided in favour of Revenue.
|