9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 07.05.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Revised grounds have been filed by the Revenue. First revised ground is as under:- "The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,061/- on account of disallowance made on insurance, depreciation, interest on finance and restricting addition @ 10% on disallowance made on car expenses to Rs. 34,944/- by following ITAT's or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed in assessee's own case for AY 2000-01. The ld. DR could not bring on record any material to indicate that there was any fallacy in such order or in the subsequent years such order has not been followed. Respectfully following the precedent, we approve the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is not allowed. 5. The second ground is against the deletion of addition of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf, while passing order u/s 143(3) for the AY 2009-10, accepted the assessee's submissions on this score and did not make any such addition. When interest free loans were given to the parties from whom the assessee had taken premises for its business purpose without paying any rent, the notional interest on such loans can be considered as quid pro quo of rent. Since the AO has himself accepted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for business purpose and the same was not possible unless it was so converted, the conversion charges in such circumstances could not have been considered as a capital expenditure. The case is not even hit by Expl. 1 to sec. 32(1) inasmuch as payment of such conversion charges cannot be considered as any capital expenditure 'on the construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
