TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY), as stated thus, “The principle therefore would be that if there are funds available both interest-free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments”. On the basis of this principle, as has been consistently held by coordinate benches of this Tribunal, as long as interest free funds available to an assessee are in excess of the non business investments or interest free advances, presumption has to be that investments or interest free advan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed ignoring the appellant s submission. (ii) Because considering the facts of the case the enhancement of ₹ 78,000/- made by Ld. CIT(A) is legally wrong and deserves to be deleted. 3. Ld. Representatives fairly accepts that the issue is now covered by the order dated 30.06.2014 of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA Nos.120 121/Agra/2013 wherein we have inter alia observed s follows :- 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 5. We find that it is an undisputed position that interest free funds available to the assessee are far in excess of the interest free advances given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest disallowances are, accordingly, deleted. 4. Learned D.R., however, relied upon the stand of the authorities below. 5. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record, we see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in assessee s own case vide order dated 30.06.2014 in ITA Nos.120 121/Agra/2013. Respectfully following the same, we delete the disallowance. Ground nos.1 2 are thus allowed. 6. In ground no.3 the assessee has raised the following grievance :- 3(i) Because the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed an addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- out of addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on adhoc basis as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/72 lacs last year and the same have been made in cash and the assessee has got self made vouchers and did not submit the PAN etc. of the labour. Therefore, the same is not fully verifiable, as labour migrates and the authenticity is doubtful. This expense seems to be quite excessive as compared to the last year. As the assessee has made cash payments and has many self made vouchers and all the same are not verifiable or expenses seems to be excessive. Therefore, in view of the same on estimate basis an addition of ₹ 50,000/- is being made in the hand of the assessee on estimate basis. ii) Further, the assessee has also shown payments for Purchases for Goods made for less than ₹ 20,000/- for each transaction in cash in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
