TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration assessee has substantially demonstrated before Ld.CIT(A) regarding sufficient funds being available for investment purposes other than the interest/bearing funds which has not been refuted by Ld. CIT-D.R. CIT(A) has observed that the funds are to be strictly utilised by assessee as per guidelines issued by RBI - submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel regarding there being no details that was filed by assessee in order to demonstrate the non-utilisation of interest bearing funds for the purpose of investments that could yield dividend income. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6083/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2021 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk has imposed stringent end use condition and limits while sanctioning the loans which were only for the specific purposes. There was specific prohibition for the use of the funds for investment in shares of other companies and capital markets. So the borrowed funds could not have utilised for the investment purposes. It has been further noted that there was huge availability of assessee s own surplus funds, the details of which were furnished by the assessee. In these circumstances it has been held that no disallowance of interest could have been made. The relevant observation and the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT (A) in this regard reads as under: 5.4.1 The ld. AR submitted that at the end of the Financial Year 2010-11, the Society ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case on record. It is seen that this issue came up for consideration before the CIT (A) -11, New Delhi in Assessment Year 2010-11 i.e. the immediately preceding year and before the CIT(A), XXIII, New Delhi, in the Assessment Year 2009-10. The two CslT(A) in the aforesaid orders, allowed this ground of the appellant based on the factual position and have quashed the disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) for the aforesaid two years. The year wise chart of the availability of own funds furnished by the appellant shows that the factual position is similar to the one in the earlier years. On the jurisprudence, the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharti Overseas (supra) is in favour of the plea of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the auditors which was verified by Ld. CIT(A) has not been found fault with by Revenue. Even though assessee has kept all the funds in one common pool, the presumption that the investment has been made from interest bearing funds cannot be appreciated, since for the year under consideration assessee has substantially demonstrated before Ld.CIT(A) regarding sufficient funds being available for investment purposes other than the interest/bearing funds which has not been refuted by Ld. CIT-D.R. Ld.CIT(A) has observed that the funds are to be strictly utilised by assessee as per guidelines issued by RBI. Further we have verified records in the context of both orders dt. 30.09.2016 as well as 05.04.2018 and are convinced with the submissions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
