Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1351 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of guest fees and hire charges - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2013 (1) TMI 1031 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 200-07 has been set aside by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. We further find that reliance placed by the Revenue in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. vs. CIT [1987 (10) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] are on different facts and, therefore, the ratio of the judgement is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of deduction claimed from income from other sources u/s 57(iii) - disallowance on account of 'income from other sources' u/s57 which Assessee failed to prove to have been incurred wholly & exclusively for the purpose of earning such interest income - HELD THAT:- As from A. Y. 1989-90 onwards, the issue had become settled i.e. the interest income would be charged as income from other sources and 10% of the same would be allowed as deduction for concerned expenses. In the A. Y. 2010- 11, the AO is raking up the controversy after 20 years on the issue which has not been agitated by either of the side. This is not the new issue to my mind, therefore, the principle of consistency required to be followed as has been held in various below mentioned case laws DCIT Vs. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation [2011 (3) TMI 526 - PATNA HIGH COURT] CIT Vs. Ranganathar & Co. [2007 (8) TMI 338 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Gopal Purohit [2010 (11) TMI 222 - SC ORDER] Thus disallowance made by the A. O. is hereby deleted. Looking to the facts of the present case we find that assessee has been claiming 10% of the interest income and the same has been consistently allowed for last so many years. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same. This ground of Revenue is also dismissed.
|