TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere deleted by the CIT(A) in respect of assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that the fact situation remains the same as in earlier years and as a matter of fact the interest expenditure has almost halved compared to last year. These loans are not new but were made a couple of years back for business expediency out of own surplus funds (which is evident from para 4.11 of the assessment order) wherein it was stated that the funds advanced are more than the loan bearing funds. It was also pleaded that the loans that were issued afresh this year (in addition to the loans extended in earlier years) amounts to only ₹ 8 lakhs. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under compulsory scrutiny and accordingly, notice dated 23.9.2013 u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act and notices dated 13.6.2014 under section 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to the statutory notices, the A.R. of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed the necessary details / explanations and evidences. The assessee company is to carry out on investment business and to purchase, acquire, hold and dispose of or otherwise invest in shares debentures, stock, bonds obligation and securities. The AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made payment of interest on loans taken by it and has claimed the payment as eligible business expenditure u/s. 37 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the fact situation in this year no longer remains the same and the earlier appellate findings in favour of the assessee would no longer applicable. Further he relied upon following case laws:- - CIT vs. Cornerstone Exports (P) Ltd. (2016) 238 Taxman 465. - Hon ble Gujarat High Court. - Narasu s Spinning Mills vs. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 512. ITAT, Chennai. - Abhishek Industies Ltd. (2006) 156 Taxmann 257 (P H). - CIT vs. R. Mohan (2011)-TIOL-687-HC-MAD-IT. - Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs. CIT (2011) 196 Taxman 404 Delhi High Court. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the Ld. AR that the fact situation remains the same as in earlier years and as a matter of fact the interest expenditure has almost halved compared to last year. These loans are not new but were made a couple of years back for business expediency out of own surplus funds (which is evident from para 4.11 of the assessment order) wherein it was stated that the funds advanced are more than the loan bearing funds. It was also pleaded that the loans that were issued afresh this year (in addition to the loans extended in earlier years) amounts to only ₹ 8 lakhs. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of consistency principles, the addition in dispute is deleted and accordingly, the ground r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
