TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improvement of the house property in question as per provisions of sec.24(b) of the IT Act. See M/s.Sane & Doshe Enterprises [2015 (4) TMI 707 - ITAT MUMBAI] upheld by HC [2015 (4) TMI 882 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.5901/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2015 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri B.V.Jhaveri (AR) For The Respondent : Shri Sumit Kumar (DR) ORDER Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16/8/2013 of the CIT(A)-23, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the assessee is in respect of disallowance of interest of ₹ 18,70,675/- u/s 24(b) of the IT Act while computing income from house property. 4. The assessee-firm owns a property called Siroya Centre in Andheri(E), Mumbai. This property was let out to M/s.Aditya Birla Retails Ltd., for annual rent of ₹ 8,40,84,000/-. While computing income from house property, the assessee has claimed interest u/s 24(b) of ₹ 19,64,857/-. The AO noted that the assessee paid interest of ₹ 4,70,909/- on loans from outsiders and balance interest of ₹ 93,53,377/- was paid to partners on their capital contribution. Accordingly AO has restricted the claim of interest us 24(b) to ₹ 94,182/- out of the total amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion, he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal dated 16/5/2012 in the case of M/s.Sane Doshi Enterprises vs. ACIT in ITA No.6532/Mum/2010 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide judgment dated 9/4/2015 reported in 232 Taxman 452. Thus the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that interest paid by the assessee to its partners cannot be treated as expenditure for the purpose of section 24(b) of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraph 4 as under: 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Although the learned DR has strongly supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) confirming the disallowance made by the AO on account of assessee's claim for deduction u/s 24(b) for interest paid on partners' capital account by relying on the various reasons given in the impugned order, the learned counsel for the assessee has filed a wri t ten submi ssion to meet satisfactorily each and every point raised by the learned CIT(Appeals) while confirming the disallowance made by the AO on account of assessee's claim for deduction u/s 24(b). Moreover, as rightly submitted by the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is in relation to this ground that the Tribunal held in paragraph 4 as under: 4. We have heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Although the learned DR has strongly supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) confirming the disallowance made by the AO on account of the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 24(b) for interest paid on partners' capital account by relying on the various reasons given in the impugned order, the learned counsel for the assessee has filed a written submission to meet satisfactorily each and every point raised by the learned CIT(Appeals) while confirming the disallowance made by the AO on account of assessee's claim for deduction u/s 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts was impossible. 42. We do not think that any larger question or wider controversy needs to be determined. If the matter was approached in this angle by the Commissioner and in the same factual backdrop, then, there is no justification for taking a contrary view. If two conflicting views of the Commissioner were placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal found that it had concurred with one of those views and that the view with which it concurred prevails, then, we do not think how the Revenue can raise this issue. The issue has been considered bearing in mind the typical factual background. If the entire interest paid on the partners' capital was related to the premises which were let out by the assessee but the constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
