9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- derived from investments in the group company Lanco Kondapally Power Pvt. Ltd. The said dividend income being exempt, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 1,07,68,545/- u/s 14A being the interest paid to the said Lanco Kondapally Power Pvt. Ltd. Against loan taken by the assessee. However, in view of the fact that assessment was already completed u/s 143(3) on 29/12/2006, where the entire interest expenses claimed by the assessee was disallowed, no separate addition on this issue was made in the assessment order. The AO adopted the same assessed income of Rs. 10,01,45,141/- as was determined earlier in the asst. order u/s 143(3). On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in assessee's own case for AY 2003-04 in ITA No. 417/Hyd/07 vide order dated 2nd November, 2007 wherein the Tribunal held as under:- "9. We are fortified in this behalf by the recent decision of the Delhi B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head note, vide per page-219 of the Reports (293 ITR), as under:- ".......... (iv) That therefore, no expenditure, other than the expenditure apportioned by the assessee itself against agricultural receipts incurred by the assessee could be apportioned agricultural receipts." 10. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this account does not call for any interference and accordingly, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected." 5. Since the issue under consideration is identical to the one decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2003-04(supra), respectfully following the same we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue in both the years under consideration. 6. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA NO. 87/HYD/2010 - appeal by the assessee for AY 2003-04 7. The assessee has raised 8 grounds in this appeal, the sum and substance of which is non setting off of capital loss on sale of shares in Lanco Net Ltd. against capital gains. 8. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of construction, had filed its return of income s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided by the appellate authorities. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal do not deserve to be decided afresh since the same have already been decided earlier by the CIT(A)." Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2003-04 in ITA No. 377/Hyd/2007 vide order dated 30/11/2007 wherein the Tribunal held as under:- "10.2 .......................we are of the considered view that transactions involved related to share transaction of Lanco Net Ltd. is not a transaction in accordance with the business activities of the assessee. The sale price of shares i.e. @ 10 paise per share is arbitrary and is not supported by any evidence or material. The assessee has failed to substantiate its claim by cogent material and evidence regarding the sale of shares @ 10 paise per share. Thus, the loss claimed by the assessee by selling shares on an arbitrary rate of 10 paise per share is not allowable as short-term capital loss. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly called for the explanation of the appellant in respect of the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 38,21,764/-. The Assessing Officer had observed that the appellant had not annexed the form No. 10CCB as also separate balance sheet and P&L account for the undertaking as per Rule 18BBB(2). In reply, the appellant had filed the Form No. 10CCB along with the balance sheet and P&L A/c. However, in the balance sheet on the liability side except for secured loans there was no other item reflected in particular. Items shown as 'due to head office' was nothing but the balancing figure to tally the liability and assets side. Similarly on the assets side only fixed assets and sundry debtors were shown. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order has denied the claim of deduction u/s 80IA on the ground that the assessee's balance sheet is cooked up and not properly maintained. After going through the provisions in Rule 18BBB, I agree with the findings of the Assessing Officer. Rule 18BBB prescribes that a separate report is to be furnished by each undertaking or enterprise claiming deduction u/s 80IA or 80IB and shall be accompanied with the P&L A/c and balance sheet of the und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
