TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned assessments - Appeal is allowed by way of remand - IT APPEAL NO. 7148 (MUM.) OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2011 - N.V. VASUDEVAN, B. RAMAKOTAIAH, JJ. K. Singh for the Appellant. ORDER B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 26-10-2006 of the CIT(A)-III, Mumbai relating to assessment year 2000-01. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer representing notional interest on deposit of Rs. One Crore placed with M/s. Matulya Mills Ltd. 2. On the facts and in the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o M/s. Mahamaya Invests Ltd. We considered the matter. When the recovery of principal amounts itself is doubtful to be realized from the debtors, there is no justification to contemplate any notional interest by way of income in the hands of the assessee company. Therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) on this point is just and proper. The ground is accordingly dismissed." Since the issue is held against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision we agree with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the notional interest as income in the hands of the assessee company. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the ground is accordingly dismissed. 5. Gr. No. 2 The issue is in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 5 of ITA No. 445/Mum./2003 in assessee's own case for assessment year 1999-2000 is as under :- "5. This issue is covered by the decision of ITAT Mumbai 'G' Bench in the case of JCIT v. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. In ITA No. 1429/Mum./99 for assessment year 1993-94 vide order dated 1st Sept., 2006 in which it has been held as follows : "The second ground raised by the revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in directing to tax the foreign dividend in net amount after deducting the foreign tax. In this context, the decision relied on by the CIT(A) is the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ambalal Khilachand 210 ITR 844. In the said decision the Bombay High Court has held that dividends received from companies in Unite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
