9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ill, Chennai-600 034 dated 17.01.2013 in l.T.A.No.646/11-12 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 2,09,24,5291- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act being the interest on borrowed capital on the ground of diversion of borrowed funds to M/s Thiruvengadam Investments P Ltd. in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sustenance of the disallowance of Rs. 2,09,24,529/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act being the interest on borrowed capital was wrong, incorrect, unjustified, erroneous and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant-company filed its return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,44,89,527/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Company Circle-II(2), Chennai u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2011 at a total income of Rs. 6,94,76,277/- after making certain disallowances. The disallowance inter alia includes disallowance of interest claimed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs. 2,09,24,549/- on the ground that the appellant-company had given interest free advances to M/s. Tiruvengadam Investments Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL), which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any further appeal before this Tribunal and he also filed copy of orders of the ld. CIT(A)-6, Chennai dated 08.04.2016 in ITA No.281/CIT(A)-6/2015-16. He further stated that the loans were advanced to M/s. TIPL during the normal course of the business and in terms of the joint development agreement entered into between the appellant and M/s. TIPL he also filed copy of the joint development agreement and he also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 01 (SC). On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue in this appeal is whether the disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge his onus would result into the disallowance of interest claim as held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. 156 Taxman 256 (P&H). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) after examining the relevant material papers had come to conclusion that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving that loans were used only for business purpose and therefore, clearly held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied. Thus, we do not find any fallacy in the reasoning of ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we do not any merit in appeal filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 18th d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
