9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced, untenable and uncalled for. The provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the appellant's case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that under the facts and circumstances is to be fair and reasonable to restrict the rate of interest to 15% as against 18% claimed by the Appellant and 12% allowed by the Appellant. The disallowance of interest which works out to Rs. 3,38,140 is untenable and contrary to law. The facts of the case and market rate of interest has been ignored to be considered properly by the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals). 3. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 6,76,279/- o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out that the disallowance made in assessment year 2006-07 by the Assessing Officer on account of interest has been deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his order dated 11.11.2012 in appeal No. 605/IT/CIT(A)/ASR/08-09. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(Appeals), Amritsar are as under: "5. Shri J P Bhatia, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant appeared and on the date of hearing on 9.11.2012, furnished written submissions of accounts relying thereunder the case laws cited as Ram Avtar Garg v. ITO, reported at (2010) 4 ITR (JP) 245. The main thrust of the appellant is on the fact that whereas partner's capital contributed was Rs. 61.75 lakhs as against the family deposits of Rs. 1.02 crores which were necessary for the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 2006-07 passed in assessee's own case has not been challenged by way of appeal and the Revenue has accepted the same. Shri Hari Om Arora, ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the facts of the present year are similar to that of assessment year 2006-07 and therefore, the Revenue was not justified in taking a different view in this year. In this year also, the loans were taken from the same persons/relatives. It is true that for the purpose of disallowance under sect ion 40A(2) of the Act, the guiding factor is whether the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the case, services or facilities for which the payment has been made. In our opinion, it is a matter of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
