9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissing the appeal for default. Thereafter, the revenue did not move to have the matter urgently circulated. The above notice of motion taken out by the revenue came up for hearing on 17th July 2015. At which time we allowed the notice of motion and placed the appeal for admission. It is in the above circumstances that the appeal of 2008 has come up for admission in 2015. 3. The appellant revenue has raised the following question of law for our consideration : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in directing to allow interest on borrowed capital amounting to Rs. 18.37 lacs as allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at the time when the project is completed. It is further submitted by Mr.Chhotaray that there was no substantial business was carried out as an agent by the respondent-assessee and in the facts and circumstances, the findings of the authorities showing that the amount has been utilized for the purposes of business is not justified. It is submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), reported in 98 ITR 167, this amount of interest cannot be allowed as expenditure as the business had not commenced. 8. We find that the submission made by Mr.Chhotaray on behalf of the revenue would require investigation into facts when these points were not urged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal, have reached a finding of fact that the interest was paid on amounts borrowed and used for the purposes of business. The issue stands covered by virtue of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Core Health Club Ltd., (supra). The decision cited by Mr. Chhotaray in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) would have no application to the present facts. In this case there is concurrent finding of fact that the amounts have been utilized in the carrying on business and one of the business carried out by the respondent-assessee was that of a Estate Agent.
11. In the above circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
