TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aurav Bansal , C.A. Revenue by : Sh. Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI , AM : These cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- 13, New Delhi dated 16.02.2017 relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 3. Assessee is a company who filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 03.12.2013 declaring Nil income, current year business loss of ₹ 5,98,037/- and loss from house property ₹ 1,19,20,350/- to be carried forward. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2015 and the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made by AO on account of interest on borrowed capital on ₹ 3,00,00,000/- to 1,50,00,000/- u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 just because in earlier years also this disallowance has been allowed to the assessee without proper documentary evidences regarding its claim. 2. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any of the Ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. We first proceed with assessee s appeal: 6. At the ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crore and the secured loan from IIFL for the construction of school building of ₹ 25 crore. Assessee further submitted that no fresh loan for construction of school building was raised during the year under consideration and the interest paid was on the loan taken from IIFL prior to 31.03.2010 and the interest on the same has been allowed in earlier assessment years against the property income. It was therefore submitted that there was no reason to disallow the interest paid on borrowed funds for the construction of school building. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO was of the view that as per Section 23/24 of the Act, deduction is available only when the funds was used for the purpose of acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in earlier years. 10. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of AO. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the restriction of disallowance of interest. AO had disallowed the entire interest payment of ₹ 3 crore but when the matter was carried before the CIT(A), CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 50% of the interest payment. We find that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2010-11 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2018 in ITA No.6177/Del/2014 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: 17. We have considered the rival submissions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest claimed in earlier year not disputed by authorities below. Therefore, interest is allowable. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed. 12. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 followed the order of Tribunal in A.Y. 2010-11 and had allowed the claim of the assessee. We further find that while deciding the issue in A.Y. 2012-13, claim of assessee was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal by following the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2010- 11. We thus find that on identical issue the claim of the assessee has been allowed in earlier years and we further find that CIT(A) while de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
