TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diture is pending before the Hon'ble Special Court. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the proceedings in which the said issue of interest was issued by the custodian have been already concluded which fact has already been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. We, therefore, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this fact while deciding the issue afresh. Levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C - HELD THAT:- Identical issue was decided in the cases of Topaz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [ 2014 (6) TMI 998 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [ 2014 (7) TMI 466 - ITAT MUMBAI] that the Tribunal had upheld the levy of interest in principal, that it had set aside the issue for calculating the interest to the file of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinciples of natural justice. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that no income from attached assets can be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not granting relief of liability amounting to ₹ 60,94,456/-, towards interest expenditure claimed by the appellant. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not granting relief of liability amounting to ₹ 69,40,693/-towards interest expenditure claimed by the appellant. 7. The Appellant craves leave of Your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/ or delete all or any of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical for all the years, so, for the sake of convenience we are disposing the appeals by a single order. ITA No. 8481/Mum/2010, AY. 2007-08 2. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the assessee was not interest in pursuing Grounds No. 1-4 filed for the AY. under appeal. Therefore, same stand dismissed, as not pressed. It was also stated that the ground no. 6 was consequential to ground no. 5. 3. It leaves us with ground No. 5 which deals with disallowance of Interest Expenditure of ₹ 69.40 lakhs. During the course of hearing before us, Representatives of both the sides agreed that the issue has arisen in the Harshad S. Mehta (HSM) group on many occasions and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile disposing the ground relating to the disallowance of interest, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the findings given in the case of Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Eminent Holdings in ITA Nos. 2139, 2140 and 2141/Mum/2013 have followed the decision of the Tribunal given in common group case of Hitesh S. Mehta at para 2.3 of the order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following the findings of the Co ordinate Bench, we restore this issue to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Before closing this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot press grounds No. 1-3 for all the AY.s., so, same are dismissed as not pressed. 5. Ground No. 4 for all the years deals with disallowance of interest expenditure and the amounts involved are ₹ 2,03,65,051 ₹ 84,61,000/- and ₹ 88,80,018/- respectively for the AY.s. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Following our order for the earlier years, including the AY. 2007-08, we allow ground no. 4 for statistical purposes- the CIT (A) will look in the matter afresh as indicated in the orders of the earlier years. Ground No. 5 for all the three AY. s. is consequential to Ground no. 4. So, it is not being adjudicated. 6. Last ground of appeal for all the three assessment years pertains to levy of interest u/s. 234 A, 234B and 234C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s subjected to provisions of TDS, that the changeability of the section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act should be after considering the amount of tax deductible at source on the income assessed. The appellant relies in this regard on the following decisions. He relied upon the cases of Motorola inc. v. DCIT [95 ITD 269 (Del.(SB)], Sedco Fores Drilling Co. Ltd. [264 ITR 320], NGC Network Asia LLC [313 ITR 187] Summit Bhatacharya [ 300 ITR (AT) 347 (Bom)(SB)], Vijal Gopal Jindal [ITA No. 4333/Del/2009] Emillo Ruiz Berdejo [320 ITR 190 (Bom)]. DR relied upon the cases of Devine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 3.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that in the case of Devine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Hon ble Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
