9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- The decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed - provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C were applicable to the notified person also - provisions of section 234 of the Act are applicable - as far as calculation part is concerned, there was merit in the submission made by the assessee – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 2139/Mum/2013, ITA No. 2140/Mum/2013, ITA No. 2141/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2014 - Sh. I. P. Bansal And Rajendra,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Dharmesh Shah For the Respondent : Dr. P. Daniel ORDER Per Rajendra, AM C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not granting relief of liability amounting to ₹ 5, 14, 455/-, towards interest expenditure claimed by the appellant. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in calculating book profit u/s 115JB amounting to ₹ 11, 80, 210/-. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave of Your Honour to add to, alter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /8200/2010 dt. 12. 02. 2014) E Bench of Tribunal has decided the issue as under: 4. Ground nos. 4 5 are inter-connected relating to the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹ 5, 14, 455/-. In this regard, at the outset, Ld Counsel mentioned that an identical issue came up for adjudication before the ITAT, Mumbai in the cased of Hitesh S. Mehta vs. DCIT vide ITA No. 7726 7727/M/2010 dated 26. 04. 2013, wherein the Tribunal set aside the issue to the files of CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh by adjudicating the respective ground relating to the rejection/reliability of the books of account. Para 5 from the said order of the Tribunal (supra) is relevant in this regard and the same reads as under: 5. Ground no. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the issue after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The decision if any should be taken only after considering the decision in the case of Hitesh S Mehta, (supra). Accordingly, ground nos. 4 5 are set aside. Respectfully, following the above order, we are restoring back the matter to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground no. 4 is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part. 3. Next ground of appeal is about levy of interest u/s. 234 of the Act. Before us, AR stated that the assessee was a notified entity, that the provisions of s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act were deemed to have complied with, that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n also. Therefore, upholding the order of the FAA to that extent, we hold that provisions of section 234 of the Act are applicable. As far as calculation part is concerned, we find merits in the submission made by the assessee. Therefore, we are restoring back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication who would decide the issue after considering the amount taxed deductible at source on the income assessed and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground no. 5 is allowed in part in favour of the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY. 2002-03 stands partly allowed. ITA No. 2140/Mum/2013-AY. 2005-06 4. As the grounds of appeal for year under consideration are identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
