9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 2.1. Grounds no. 1 & 2 relate to the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the liability amounting to Rs. 1,04,35,918/- for the AYs 2002-03 towards interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that the ITAT in the assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 7726 & 7727/Mum/2010 while deciding a similar issue has held as follows: "Ground no. 4 relates to the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the liabilities amounting to Rs. 11,24,99,052/- and Rs. 12,61,36,245/- respectively for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2006-07 towards interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the findings given in para 3.3 above in respect of rejection/reliability of the books of accounts and the proposed adjudication of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing ground:- "1. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per the decision of Hon'ble Special Court dated 30.04.2010 in M.P. No. 41 of 1999, the assets 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." 5. After going through the addition ground filed by the assessee, we noted that the ground is legal ground, which does not require any new facts to be brought on record. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383, the legal ground can be admitted, if n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mention that the ITAT in ITA No. 7498 & 7732/M/2010 set aside the ground as premature in the assessee's own case for the AYs. 2005-06 & 2006- 07 and a similar view has been taken by the ITAT for the other years following the said order. 4.1 However, the ITAT in ITA No. 6810/Mum/2008 in M/s. Velvet Holdings Pvt. Ltd, a group case, while deciding a similar issue, has held as follows: "In other group cases, the ITAT held that interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D cannot be levied as the assessee is a notified person and the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act 1992 will prevail. Revenue has carried the matter to Hon'ble High Court which upheld the revenue contention. It held vide pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 26 June 2006 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The appeal is accordingly disposed of." 12.2 The ld. Counsel pointed out that the matter is referred to the same bench for reconsideration in the case of CIT vs. Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.3365 of 2010 dated 02/07/2013. As seen from the copy of the order placed on record, the above order was not stayed. Only the appeal was transferred to the same Bench for hearing. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to differ from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, it was held that levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory. The grounds are accordingly allowed." It appears that the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
