9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. From the grounds raised in both appeals, we find that Revenue's grievance common in both assessment years is that CIT(Appeals) has wrongly restricted disallowance made by the Assessing Officer qua interest free advances of Rs.19,06,885/- and Rs.21,62,698/- respectively. The other contention of the Revenue in I.T.A Nos.405/Mds/2012 is that CIT(Appeals) has wrongly held the assessee to be entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act. 3. Before us, the Revenue has reiterated the pleadings in both cases and prayed for acceptance of the appeals. 4. Per contra, the assessee has strongly supported the CIT(Appels) orders in both assessment years and prays for confirmation thereof. 5. Brief facts for assessment year 2003-2004 are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y taking into consideration the assessee's argument that they were exporters related to his export business etc. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal. 9. We have heard both parties and perused the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer as well the CIT(Appeals). The only submission of the Revenue is that since the assessee had not filed any material in support of the pleas of having sufficient surplus funds as well as proof of expectations of profits from export business of the parties concerned, the interest claim deserves to be added as done by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has succeeded in getting the relief from the CIT(Appeals). In these circumstances, we find that the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CTI Vs. Orissa Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Rs.41,60,000/- and claimed to have invested the consideration in residential house at No.27, Mylai Ranganathan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Per assessee, he was entitled to relief under section 54F of the Act. In the assessment order dated 12.12.2006, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee has constructed the house on the land owned by his wife Smt. Usha which only amounted to a contribution to the cost of construction, it disentitlied him for exemption under section 54F of the Act. 14. In appeal, the CTI(Appeals) has cited law case of ITAT Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Gulshan Banoo R. Mukhi Vs. JCIT reported in 83 ITD 649, and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. This lead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
