TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid findings of the CIT(A) have been duly affirmed by the Tribunal upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) for allowing relief under Section 80M. - second question deserves to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee - 150 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2010 - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the respondent-assessee. M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') passed in ITA No. 200/Chandi/99, vide order dated 15.12.2003. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1995-96. The revenue has claimed that the following two questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition made on account of interest on interest-free loans advanced by the assessee-company to its siste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dividend interest. However, the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating the management expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/- was found in order. Accordingly, the CIT(A) relied upon the order passed in assessee's own case in respect of the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction under Section 80M without apportioning any part of interest payment to the earning of the dividends (Annexure A-1). Feeling aggrieved the revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A), dated 16.12.1998, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the views of the CIT(A) on question No. 1 by observing as under:- "8. We have heard both the parties and considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in assessee's own case for Ays 1992-93 and 1993-94 (supra) where the Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition by recording following finding in para 14 as under:- "14 We have heard both the parties and considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue came up before the Tribunal for Assessment year 1991-92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of consistency because in the earlier assessment years the same course was followed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The view of the Tribunal in that respect reads thus:- "11. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is squarely covered by ITAT, Chandigarh Bench's order in ITA No. 1031/97, Assessment year 1992-93 and ITA No. 8/98, Assessment year 1993-94 (supra) where the tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) in apportioning the management expenses of Rs. 1.00 lakh and deleting the disallowance of interest against dividend income by recording the following finding in para 18 of the aforesaid order: "18 We have heard both the parties and considered their rival submissions. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the order dated 6.9.2002 of ITAT Chandigarh Bench for Assessment year 1991-92 (supra) where the Tribunal in para 19 of the aforesaid order has held as under: "19. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the facts, evidence and material placed on record. As per provisions of section 57 of I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RE: QUESTION NO. 1 The first question does not need any detailed discussion because when the matter was admitted, ITA Nos. 16 and 17 of 2004 pertaining to Assessment Years 1992-93 and 1993-94 between the same parties on the aforesaid question of law were already admitted. Accordingly, this appeal was also admitted to be heard along with ITA Nos. 16 and 17 of 2004. Those appeals have been disposed on the aforesaid question by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.1.2009 and the matter has been remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), [2007] 288 ITR 1. The order of the Division Bench reads thus:- " During the course of hearing learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed that the deduction available to an assessee under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest component on capital borrowed is to be determined in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1 so as to determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
