TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngineering Works P. Ltd. [2005 (4) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD High Court] - Decided against Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 447 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : A. N. Mahajan For the Respondent : S. D. Singh ORDER 1. We have heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the department. Shri S.D. Singh appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. This Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act arises out of judgment and order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench dated 19.5.2009 in respect of assessment year 2005-06. 3. The department has preferred this appeal on following substantial questions of law: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed on the ground that borrowed capital was not used in business. It was utilised for purchasing shares in the name of partner and thus the interest on the borrowed capital could not be allowed. 5. Shri S.D. Singh, appearing for the respondent-assessee, on the other hand, submits that in the previous years as well as in the financial year in question i.e. financial year 2004-05 no shares were purchased or acquired and thus the ground for disallowing the interest was not supported by facts on record. He explained that after 31.3.2003 out of total investment in shares at Rs.1,32,06,598/-, a sum of Rs.1,30,12,000/- represented the shares of Kailash Auto Builders Pvt. Ltd in settlement of trade debts of M/s Commercial Body Builders, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sister concern were fully covered from the interest free advances, share capital, surplus and reserve which the assessee had. The Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of the disallowance of interest of Rs.1,81,000/-. 12. In the present case also, the facts are identical and the Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to show that assessee had diverted its interest bearing funds to its sister concern without charging interest. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. C.I.T. (A). We, therefore, confirm the order of the ld. C.I.T. (A) and reject the grounds of appeal taken by the department." 7. We do not find that substantial questions of law as raised in the appeal arise for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
