TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine the remuneration which in their view should be paid to an employee of the assessee. Appeal dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee, - TAX APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2007 With TAX APPEAL NO. 814 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 24-12-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE JUDGEMENT Per: K S Jhaveri: 1. The question of law involved in these appeals are similar, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. In Tax Appeal No.1126 of 2007, the revenue has challenged the order dated 28.02.2007, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short the Tribunal ) in ITA No.2878/A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerns and paid interest @ 18% which was much higher than the prevailing market rate. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and made addition of ₹ 16,25,550/- on account of excess interest paid to sister concern. 5.1. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 05.09.2008 dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of the revenue. 6. While admitting Tax Appeal No.1126 of 2007 on 26.12.2007, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee has supported the impugned orders of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal in paragraph No.6.1 has given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the conclusion. Therefore, there is no germane reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the Tribunal. 9.1. Learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Walchand and Co. Private Ltd., reported in [1967] 65 ITR 381. 10. We have heard learned advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. We have also perused the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
