TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by learned CIT(A). Nothing is produced during the course of arguments to rebut the findings of learned CIT(A) - Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) - Tribunal deleted addition - Held that:- advances made to the different concerns were for the purpose of purchase of raw material or for the purchase of plant-machinery. On having found from the record that there was sufficient fund available with the assessee-respondent, it had held that there was no question of diversion of interest bearing funds by way of loan and advances - Following decision of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and another [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of loss on sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware." (2) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of bogus purchase." (3) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act" (4) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of loss on sale of raw materials" (5) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of differences of balance of Rs.14,03,85,459/-" (6) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of share and debenture issue expenses" (7) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the order of the learned CIT(A) in allowing depreciation in respect of all the software purchased and installed during the year." This issue had also arisen in Tax Appeal No. 509 of 2012. We have not deemed it fit to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in view of the fact that it is only a remand to the Assessing Officer. This issue also meets similar fate and therefore, no interference is required. As far as the question no. 2 is concerned, this is based on the evidence made available to the Tribunal and is predominantly based on the factual aspects and as identical issue has also been not entertained by us in Tax Appeal No. 509 of 2012, this question merits on consideration. As far as the question no. 3 is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be noted that sufficient reasonings have been given by the Tribunal to arrive at such conclusion. In absence of any question of law arising, this issue requires no indulgence. As far as the question no. 5 is concerned, the Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of difference of balances of Rs.14,03,85,459/-. The Tribunal after considering the explanation of the assessee-respondent and the findings of the CIT(A), recorded the reconciliation statement substantiated by necessary evidence which had been furnished by the respondent assessee. The remand report of the Assessing Officer was also called for here. In absence of any difference in details and reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
