9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee belongs to Harshad Metha group of companies. Assessee claimed total interest expenditure of Rs.26,67,555/- out of which the assessee suo moto disallowed Rs.11,34,230/- by applying section 14A of the Act and only the balance amount of Rs.15,33,325/- was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that the interest was not provided in the past years since there was no stipulation of interest payable. He further observed that interest is a contingent liability and the issue is pending before the Special Court. In his opinion the assessee is not entitled to claim interest. On an appeal filed by the assessee the learned CIT(A) observed that the loans taken from the Directors are interest free and there is no terms and conditions to pay inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s; whether second appeal was filed by the assessee and if so whether the matter was set aside in these cases also. It appears that the learned Standing Counsel was of the firm view that other than those cases in which he is briefed, it is not necessary for him to keep track of. Presumably because of that opinion he submitted that he was not aware of the status of the appeals in assessee's own case for earlier years. It is well settled that the Tribunal is a fact finding body and it is the duty of the parties appearing from both sides to assist the court properly by placing all the facts relevant for disposal of the appeal. When the first Appellate Authority referred to the earlier orders passed by his predecessor in assessee's own case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated that as per the decision of Hon'ble Special Court dated 30.04.2010 in MP No. 41 of 1999, the asses under consideration and the consequential income belongs to Shri Harshad S. Mehta and hence the income assessed by the Assessing Officer ought to have been taxed in the hands of Shri Harshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the appellant." 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of Shri Hitesh S. Mehta (supra) the earlier Benches of the ITAT have admitted the additional ground and dismissed it as infructuous. When it was pointed out that the same issue has come up before the SMC Bench wherein this Bench had taken a view that the additional ground need not to be admitted, the learned counsel for the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
