9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an opinion given by SSP & Co regarding the valuation of rights awarded to AMIF I Ltd., without affording an opportunity to the AO as required by Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 before admitting such leading & fresh evidence. (b) ) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that SSP & Co. is not a statutory body prescribed by any authority to give such reports and that the finding given by SSP & Co is not based on a method of study subject to or sanctioned by any professional body. (c) ) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that there were certain extra concessions made and rights awarded to the third party i.e. AMIF I Ltd and that the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant obtained benefit from Gammon Infrastructure Projects Limited by way of allotment of shares of GIPL to the appellant at a price lower than the actual value of shares, which is liable to be taxed as income under section 2(24)(iv) of the Income tax Act, 1961. the CIT(A) also erred in concluding that the price at which shares were allotted to a thirty party in the same period of time would be the best indicator of the actual value of shares and not following the break up value or net asset value method. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in valuing the rights attached to the shares allotted to a third party @ Rs.27.63 per share as against the valuation of @ Rs.38.92 per share valued by SSPA & Co. in their valuation report, thus holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the interest paid and interest received and also to prove that the interest paid of Rs.30,000 was expended wholly and exclusively for earning the interest income. The assessee was not able to prove any such nexus. Accordingly, the AO declined the interest claimed by the assessee. The stand so taken by the Assessing Officer is upheld by the CIT(A). 6. Learned counsel produced a copy of decision of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.2483/M/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 in assessee's own case and contended that on similar facts, the claim of the assessee is allowed. 7. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we find that a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this statement of facts that consistent with the past practice and in the absence of any justification for the departure; the interest claim ought to have been allowed. Our attention was drawn to the assessment order for the assessment year 2001-02, in which year also the claim was allowed as a deduction in the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar) to contend that if interest has been allowed as a deduction in the earlier years and there is no evidence to show that there were fresh borrowings during the relevant accounting year, the interest paid by the assessee on the opening balance of the cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs.3,00,000 and after allowing deduction u/s. 24(a) @ 30%, determined the annual rental value of both the properties at Rs.4,90,000. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 11. Having heard both the sides and having perused the material on record, we find that similar issue had come up for consideration before a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06 and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, by observing as follows: "We have considered the facts and the rival contentions. The issue, as pointed out on behalf of the assessee, is covered by a number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009, in Income Tax Appeal No: 758, 759 and 866 of 2008, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, while dealing with the question whether the annual rateable value for the purpose of section 23(1)(a) of the Act should be different than that determined by the Municipal authorities for the purpose of imposing property tax, has held that the calculation of the annual rateable value shall be based on the value determined by the Municipal authorities. A copy of this judgment has also been filed in the paper book. In the light of the aforesaid binding decisions, we are of the view that the income tax authorities were not justified in recalculating the annual letting value of the Capri and Kodinar flats owned by the assessee, and which were vacant during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
