9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee has not filed return of income before the due date, as provided u/s 139 of the Act. A notice u/s. 148 dated 08.11.2013 was issued and duly served on the assessee after recording reasons of reopening. The assessee was asked to file return of income within 7 days from the receipt of the above said notice, but assessee failed to comply the same. Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 04.08.2014, 27.11.2014 & 12.01.2015 were issued and duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee vide letter dated 05.02.2015 submitted a copy of return of income in response of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information as called for. 4. After considering the submission of assessee, AO as per computation, noticed that assessee has received dividend income of Rs. 23,29,223/-, which is claimed as exempt and earned income of Rs. 7,28,077/- as Long term capital gain, which is claimed as exempt by the assessee. AO observed that assessee has earned interest income on term deposits of Rs. 88,354/- and claimed interest on loan at Rs. 4,50,52,976/-. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 4,50,52,976/- under section 57 of the I.T. Act and the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 7. Before us Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that assessee is not pressing ground no. 1. With regard to ground no. 2 on account of disallowance of interest expenditure, Ld. AR brought to our notice para 5 to 5.8 of AO's order and para 6 to 6.6 of Ld. CIT(A)'s order and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had disallowed interest expenditure on the ground that details pertaining to nexus between borrowed funds and the investments in various assets is not available on record and hence it is not possible to determine the quantum of interest expenditure allowable. However, this issue has been decided in the past in the assessee's case for various years and deduction has been allowed by Hon'ble Tribunal. In this regard, reliance is placed on the order in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA No. 419 & 420/Mum/2016 dated 27.12.2017 at para no.42-51 of the said Common Order. While deciding the said issue, the Hon'bie Tribunal has followed their decision in the case of Sudhir Mehta v. DCIT [ITA No. 5799/Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st expenses. Similar issue has arisen in ITA No. 5799/Mum/2015 in the case of Shri Sudhir S. Mehta for A.Y. 2009-10. We, respectfully following our decision in that case, direct the AO to treat the proportionate interest which stands disallowed while disposing of ground No. 1 as part of cost of shares and securities. Thus, this ground is statistically allowed. 50. Additional ground 2 is similar to additional ground admitted in the case of ITA No. 5799/Mum/2015 in the case of Shri Sudhir S. Mehta for A.Y. 2009-10 we respectfully following the order in the case of ITA No. 5799/Mum/2015 in the case of Shri Sudhir S. Mehta admit the additional ground No. 2. So far the additional ground No. 1, after hearing the rival submission we noted that this ground is consequential in nature to the ground relating to deduction of interest and therefore has to be admitted as all the facts are available regarding interest by other family members. We, therefore, admit the same to tax correct income and income may not escape tax in the hands of the assessee. 51. So far as the ground relating to the claim of interest after disallowing proportionate interest is concerned in both the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We notice from the record that the identical ground raised in the present appeal has already been decided by the Coordinate Benches of ITAT in assessee's own case as well as others on merits. For the sake of clarity, which is reproduced below:- 52. The additional ground No. 2 in both the assessment years relating to capitalization of interest attributable to acquisition of shares and securities. As both the parties agreed that similar issue has arising in the case of Shri Sudhir S. Mehta in ITA No. 5799/Mum/2015 for A.Y. 2009-10 and whatever view this Tribunal may take in the case of Shri Sudhir S. Mehta the same view may be taken in the case of the assessee also. We therefore respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Sudhir S. Mehta direct the AO to treat the proportionate interest disallowed in each assessment year to be part of cost of acquisition of shares and securities. Thus the additional ground No. 2 in each of the assessment year stand allowed. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case, we are inclin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, Ld. AR brought to our notice para no. 8 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that identical issue was involved in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA No. 419 & 420/Mum/2016 dated 27.12.2017 in para no. 54 of the said order, wherein the issue has been sent back to the Assessing Officer to recompute interest u/s. 234B of the Act with a direction. While deciding the said issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal has followed their decision in the case of Sudhir Mehta v. DCIT [ITA No. 5799/Mum/2015] dated 27.12.2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 in para no. 20-21 of the said order. He further relied following case laws on similar issue, which are as under:- a) Aatur Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 in ITA Nos. 6954-6956/Mum/2018 in order dated 13.03.2020 b) Cascade Holdings Fvt. Ltd. v. DCIT for A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA Nos. 6967/Mum/2018 dated 23.09.2020 2019 c) Harsh Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 in ITA Nos. 6957-6959/Mum/2018 dated 15.09.2020 d) Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 in ITA No. 6960 & 6962/Mum/2018 dated 23.09.2020. 17. On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
