9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 114.34 lakhs was claimed by the assessee to have been utilized for business of construction. The CIT(A) has further recorded that this fund flow has substance to show clear nexus of utilization of borrowed fund for earning income in the form of interest, rent income and business income of construction, and has paid TDS on the interest payment wherever applicable. There being no material before us to controvert these findings of the CIT(A), we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Difference in valuation of closing work in progress - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has recorded that the AO has not rejected books of accounts of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Anil R. Shah ORDER PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: This appeal of the Revenue and CO by the asessee for the Asstt.Year 2009-2010 are directed against the order of the CIT(A). These are being disposed of with this consolidated order: ITA No.314/Ahd/2013 (Revenue s appeal) 2. The ground no.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is as under: 1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting he disallowance of ₹ 56,04,681/- made on account of interest expenses. 3. The learned DR has referred to relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He submitted that the AO has passed a well reasoned speaking order on this issue, and therefore, it should be confirmed. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, and accordingly, we hold that it could not be proved by the Revenue that the assessee s expenditure were bogus or not incurred for business construction, and accordingly, ground no.1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. The ground no.2 of the Revenue is as under: 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the difference in valuation of closing work in progress amounting to ₹ 73,48,000/- 6. The learned DR referred to relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He submitted that the assessee has made wrong calculation of work-in-progress during the relevant period. He submitted that the structural engineer, Shri J.P. Shah s c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to accept the valuation of closing work-in-progress as certified by the structural engineer in his certificate, and in deleting the addition, and accordingly, the ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. CO No.83/Ahd/2013 (Assessee s CO) 8. The ground no.1 and 2 of the CO are as under: 1. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted disallowance of ₹ 56,04,681 made on account of interest and other various expenses and the order of the CIT(A) is required to be sustained and appeal filed by the ITO, Ward-9(4) is requires to be dismissed. 2. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted addition of ₹ 73,48,000 made to the valuation of closing work in progress by taking tin considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
