9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an was taken subsequent to the purchase of the property and cannot be said that the same was utilized for acquiring the property. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in declining the benefit of Section 24(b) of the Act. Equally, once it is held that the assessee had not borrowed any capital for the purchase of the property, the assessee was not entitled to any deduction under Section 80C(1) read with 80C(2)(xviii) of the Act. The authorities on appreciation of evidence had rightly declined the claim of the assessee for the deduction under Section 24(b) and 80C of the Act. - Decided against assessee. Addition on account of 89 liquor bottles - Held that:- The Tribunal had recorded that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. 2. ITA No. 71 of 2015 has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the orders dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A , New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 307/Del/2013 for the assessment year 2006- 07, dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No.1 and dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.1, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of the present case, the Ld. Authorities have erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 24 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in response to the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act, he again filed the return on 20.10.2010 declaring the income at ₹ 1,12,73,778/-. Respondent No.2 vide assessment order dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure A-1), inter alia, disallowed the deduction under Sections 24 and 80C of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity the CIT(A) ]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure A-2) partly allowed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The question which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e four immediately succeeding previous years. Provided also that no deduction shall be made under the second proviso unless the assessee furnishes a certificate from the person to whom any interest is payable on the capital borrowed, specifying the amount of interest payable by the assessee for the purchase of such acquisition or construction of the property or conversion of the whole or any part of the capital borrowed which remains to be repaid as a new loan. Explanation: For the purposes of this proviso, the expression new loan means the whole or any part of a loan taken by the assessee subsequent to the capital borrowed for the purpose of repayment of such capital. 9. A plain reading of the above provision shows that an asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- 11. We have heard rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that invitation as placed in paper book page 82 is from Saurabh and Nishu Aggarwal who are son and daughter in law of the assessee. The A.O. has made whole of the addition in the hands of the assessee which is not justified. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances we hold that the addition of ₹ 2.50 Lacs will meet the ends of justice and in view of the above, ground No.5 in Assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed. 12. The Tribunal had granted partial benefit to the assessee by holding that in the facts and circumstances only half of the amount should be added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
