9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The issue relating to the deduction of interest expenditure is remitted to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication – thus, the liability of the assessees u/s 234A, 234B and 234C depends upon the proposed adjudication of the CIT (A) in the set aside proceedings – Decided in favour of Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 8203/M/2010, I.T.A. No.8350/M/2010 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2014 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao And Shri D. Karunakara Rao,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Dharmesh Shah For the Respondent : Shri P. Daniel ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM: There are two appeals under consideration and they are cross appeals. Both these appeals are filed against the order of CIT (A)-40, Mumbai dated 10.9.2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. Since, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onnected relating to the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹ 86,15,970/-. In this regard, at the outset, Ld Counsel mentioned that an identical issue came up for adjudication before the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta vs. DCIT vide ITA No.7726 7727/M/2010 dated 26.4.2013, 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 is relevant in this regard and the same reads as under: 5. Ground no.4 relates to the action of the Ld CIT (A) in confirming the liabilities amounting to ₹ 11,24,99,052/- and ₹ 12,61,36,245/- respectively for the AYs 2005- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Hitesh S Mehta, (supra). Accordingly, ground nos.4 6 are set aside. 7. It deserves to be noticed that the assessee filed additional ground alongwith letter dated 11th January, 2014, wherein it was contended that the income assessed by the AO ought to have been taxed in the hands of Shri Harshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the assessee. However, at the time of hearing the learned counsel admitted that this additional ground was wrongly raised and it has no substance. Under these circumstances we reject the additional ground. 8. In the result, assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No.8350/M/2010 (AY:2007-2008) (By Revenue) 9. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 1.12.2010 is against the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
