Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 273 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - assessee has utilized the interest bearing fund for capital work in progress - A.O relying on the ground that the owned fund available with the assessee were more than the capital work in progress - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- No infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(A) who had rightly observed that as the assessee had sufficient self-owned funds to justify the investment made towards capital WIP, therefore, no part of the interest expenditure pertaining to interest bearing borrowed funds could have been disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Insofar the claim of the revenue that they had not accepted the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]and had filed a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, we are afraid that the same does not find favour with us. As the operation of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) had not been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the same holds the ground till date and continues to be binding. Addition u/s 69B - suppressed purchase consideration of the property - HELD THAT:- Adoption of the purchase consideration of the property in question by the A.O was only on the basis of an unsubstantiated and dumb rough notings on a piece of paper seized during the course of the search proceedings. On a perusal of the aforesaid seized document, we find, that the same only refers to a set of figures which on a standalone basis could not have been adopted as the purchase consideration of the property in question. Apart from that, we find that the support drawn by the A.O from the fact that while framing the assessment in the case of the seller i.e M/s Ganesh Paper Mills an addition of ₹ 1 crore was made in respect of the transaction under consideration looses all the force as the said addition on appeal had already been deleted by the CIT(A)-29, Delhi, vide his order dated 05.02.2016. Lastly, we find that the landed cost (inclusive of stamp duty and other charges) had been recorded by the assessee in its books of accounts at ₹ 14.14 crores i.e an amount in excess of the impugned purchase consideration of ₹ 14.01 crores. Accordingly, we are persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A) that in the totality of the facts of the case the addition of an amount of ₹ 1 crore made by the A.O towards suppressed purchase consideration of the property in question cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI]
|