TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lower authority had ruled that the provision did have retrospective operation. No question of law, therefore, arises since the ITAT merely followed the ruling of this Court in Maxopp (supra). Treatment of interest for the sum which the assessee claimed as cost of acquisition under Section 55 - Held that:- The assessee sold off its shares to an entity in a bid to disinvest itself of the loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice that the CIT (A) had reversed the AO’s order after noting the decision of this Court in CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari (1973 (2) TMI 11 - DELHI High Court) and a later decision of the Madras High Court - CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd.[2007 (7) TMI 252 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. In those decisions, it was held that the interest paid subsequent to the date of the transfer in respect of the money borrowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the third pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer having regard to the treatment of interest for the sum of ₹ 2,34,05,003/- which the assessee claimed as cost of acquisition under Section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. So far as the first question goes, the ITAT noticed the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 347 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not supported by any documentary evidence. Given that the disinvestment itself is not doubted as is evident from the matters reported by the assessee which are part of the record, the expenses claimed are neither disproportionate nor of the kind that facially require proof as was sought by the authorities below. Consequently, no question of law arises. 4. As far as the capitalization of the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
