TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA Nos : 3741 & 4306/Mum/2007 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2012 - SHRI B. R. MITTAL, AND SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, JJ. Department by : Shri Ajay O R D E R Per N. K. BILLAIYA, A.M.: These cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-Central VIII, Mumbai dated 27.03.2007 for the A.Y. 2001-02. As both these appeals are against the same order, for the sake of convenience and brevity both these appeals are disposed of together by this common order. 2. This is the appeal filed by the assessee by which the assessee has questioned the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 are taken up together. The facts giving rise to these grounds suggest that during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings, no interference is called for. Accordingly, ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 taken up together are dismissed. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are confirmed to this extent. 5. Ground nos. 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 relates to the grievance of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the claim of bad debts. We find that this has been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 10, para 5 and 5.1 of his appellate order. We find that this ground was not taken by the assessee in its original ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It has only taken up in the concise grounds of appeals, and, therefore, it was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). However, as the claim of bad debts is allowable u/s.36(vii) and as the Ld. CIT(A) has directed to adopt the net profit ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue. The Revenue has questioned the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) who has directed to estimate the profit @ 7% as against 10% applied by the A.O. As we have discussed this point in the assessee s appeal in ITA No. 3741/Mum/2007 where we have held that the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on the logical reasoning, we do not find any reasons to adjudicate on this matter once again. Ground no. 1 and 2 taken up together are dismissed. 9. By ground no. 3 the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has allowed the relief on account of interest income on FDRs. Facts of the case suggest that the assessee was having fixed deposit with Bank of Baroda, Bori Bunder Branch of which the assessee has not shown accrue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
