TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral expenses. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the finding of the AO that Fine Installments (P) Ltd. ( FIPL ) and Handsome Investment P. Ltd. (HPL) are not separate identifiable legal entities and, therefore, the income of F1PL and HIPL have to be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not directing the AO to delete disallowance of interest paid by FIPL/HIPL to the appellant. 3. The first ground of appeal raised by the assessee pertains to ad-hoc disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, out of business promotion and general expenses and confirmed by the CIT(A), in the impugned appellate order. On a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994-95 vide decision dated 28th September, 2007. The para 17 of the impugned ITAT order contains the decision on the issue in question. In the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. Sr. DR conceded this issue as covered issue. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench, no adjudication is considered essential on the issue raised in ground no. 2, by the appellant, as the same ground is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT. However, for the purpose of proper appreciation, the relevant para 17 of the said decision is reproduced below: 17. We have carefully considered the relevant facts, arguments advanced and also considered the paper book to which our attention was drawn. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o conduct its business is always left to the discretion of the tax payer and the Assessing Officer cannot sit in the arms chair of the assessee to decide as to how the business should be conducted. This view is re-affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT 288 ITR 1. Investing in the funds of IXS by the investment companies cannot be considered as the ground to hold such investment companies as conduit or paper entities. Even in a case where the corporate veils were proposed to be lifted, the courts have examined as to whether the same was for the purpose of any tax avoidance or to avoid the welfare legislation enacted under the statute. However, when the Assessing Officer in the income-tax proceedings is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
