9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income under the head "business income" and allowing various business expenses claimed by the assessee in absence of any business activity." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition in respect of interest on borrowed capital utilized for construction of property." 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. At the outset it was submitted by Ld. AR that the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal are covered in favour of the assessee by the following earlier orders of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself. Assessment year Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, had observed that the assessee's business for development of Bio Technology Park was already set up and commenced and therefore held that the sub lease income (apart from the rental income) was assessable as business income. Also, the miscellaneous income was assessable under the head business income. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to assessee the income on sub lease of land (apart from rental income) and maintenance income under the head business income. Consequently, the Ld.CIT(A), further directed the AO to allow various expenses claimed by the assessee to the P/L Account. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the Revenue has raised these grounds in the appeal before us. 2.2 Having h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an assessee for acquiring or construction assets that are used for earning taxable income then his claim for interest expenditure has to be allowed. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is at para 15 of the said order. Since the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2008-09, which has been relied on by him for the impugned decision has been upheld by the Tribunal, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned decision, which deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, we decide this issue against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Resultantly, Ground No. 3 is dismissed. 3. Ld. DR did not controvert to the aforementioned submissions of Ld. AR. 4. In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
