9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he loans were advanced for business acquisition, advances were given from own interest free borrowings/fund and during the year no loan was advanced by the appellant.The interests were paid on bank loan, which was utilized for business purposes. No interference in the order of the CIT(A) is warranted - in favour of assessee. Depreciation on electrical installation and fitting in the hotel building - @ 25% OR 15% allowable as per IT Rules - Held that:- As per appellant this was the depreciation on telephone, Air Conditioner, Television and Water Heater & further disallowance made from the telephone expenses was claimed to be on higher side. As these facts had not been made out by the A.O. in assessment order, it is required to be re-adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout considering the factual position as well as various judicial pronouncements relied by the Assessing Officer in favour of the Revenue. 3. Ground nos. 1 2 are directed against the deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash creditor of Rs.34,35,000/- and violation of Rule 46A of the IT Act. The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee has taken loan from Seema Chatwani Rs. 10 lacs and from Neha Residency Rs.18 lacs for which the appellant had not produced any documentary evidences i.e. the copy of bank passbook, PA Number, full name and address of the depositors, their business activities and evidences demonstrating their creditworthiness. Even more than reasonable opportunity has been given. Similarly, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld.)] Not discharged onus. (v) Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (Alld.) 50 ITR 641, CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (SC) 53 ITR 623, CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (SC) 72 ITR 194, CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (S.C.) 72 ITR 807, CIT vs. Madhavnagar Cotton Mills Ltd. (Bom.) 104 ITR 493 Income of the assessee. (vi) Kale Khan Mohmmad Hanif (S.C.) 50 ITR 1 and CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (S.C.) 72 ITR 194 Undislcosed sources along with estimated additional profit from business after rejection of accounts. (vii) CIT vs. Banarsi Lal Dhawan 109 ITR 360 (Mad.) Alternative plea that these funds are from Estimated additions. (viii) CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) (FB), CIT Vs. Pratik Finance Invt. Co. Ltd. 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not pointed out to any specific defect(s). The stated deficient of Rs.16.35 lakh, as per A.O., arose as the A.O. did not consider the withdrawals of the appellant from her other proprietary concern(s)/partnership firms namely, Netra Residency and personal books of account. These details/copy of account was furnished on pages 15-18 of the paper book filed/before me and on which remand report was also obtained. In the event, the additions made u/s.68 were not justified and are deleted. The related ground of appeal is allowed. 5. Now the Revenue is before us. Ld. Sr.D.R. contended that the appellant had not furnished confirmation with PAN and source of income of the cash creditors before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we hold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue s appeal on this ground. 7. The ld. A.O. stated that the appellant had advanced loan and deposited to the extent of Rs.28,32,833/- on which no interest was charged. On the other hand, during the year, the appellant had borrowed interest bearing fund of Rs. 89,99,567/- and paid interest of Rs.7,12,724/-. He further concluded that by borrowing interest bearing loan, the appellant had reduced the income to that extent. The appellant had not established nexus between interest free fund with interest free advances. He relied following decisions: (i) CIT v. Motor General Finance Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 449, (ii) CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 363, (iii) K. Somasundara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o confirm the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have perused the order of the authorities below and gone through the paper book. The ld. D.R. had not controverted the findings given by the CIT(A) as the loans were advanced for business acquisition, advances were given from own interest free borrowings/fund and during the year no loan was advanced by the appellant. The interests were paid on bank loan, which was utilized for business purposes. Thus, we are of the considered view that no interference in the order of the CIT(A) is warranted. The Revenue s appeal on this ground is dismissed. C.O. No.181/Ahd/2009 11. The assessee filed C.O. against the confirmation of disallowances of Rs.85,046/- being excess depreciation claimed by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
