9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase on 12.5.2006 and final agreement was executed on 2.7.2007 and total consideration was fixed @ Rs. 8.6. crores (Rs. Eight crores sixty lakhs only). 2. That CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition though the Hon'ble Tribunal vide appeal No.129/Del/2011 of assessment year 2007-08 has decided the matter in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition on this point. 3. That notional interest Rs.13,34,880/-which has been calculated for the period from 1.4.2007to 24.5.2007 on advance of Rs.65382634/- as on 31.3.2007 which was opening balance as on 1.4.2007 has been wrongly added to the declared income. 4. That order passed is against law and facts of the case. 5. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter and vary the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, is as under:- Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is seen from the above that the appellant itself added interest for the period 25.5.2007 to 31.3.2008. It is seen from the account of M/s Toy N Toy International in the books of the appellant that the opening balance as on 1.4.2007 is a debit of Rs.6,53,82,634/- and the first transaction in the year is on 25.5.2007 and that of payment of Rs.15.0 lakhs resulting in a debit balance of Rs.6,68,,82,634/-. It is seen from the above that while the appellant itself added interest 25.5.07 to 31.3.08, such interest for the period 1.4.2007 to 24.5.07 on the opening balance of Rs.6,68,82,634/- has not been added, It is seen from the table in para 5 above that even after conclusion of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further explained that Assessing Officer made the addition on the fact that assessee itself had offered for addition of interest from 25.5.2007 onwards. In this respect it was submitted that interest was charged on amounts which were over and above the amount of consideration of Rs.8.60 crores and interest charged was for amounts advanced which were not for business purposes. 6. The Ld DR, on the other hand, submitted that the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the earlier year and therefore Ld CIT(A) has not followed the same and therefore he has rightly upheld the addition. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We find that facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
