9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of preceding assessment year 2008-09 deleted both the additions. It, therefore, appears that both the additions now challenged before us are identical which have been considered in detail in preceding assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, the facts being same, we respectfully follow the order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for preceding assessment year and dismiss the departmental appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case and statement of Shri Ram Gopal Sharma. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of ₹ 2,49,000/- in respect of interest paid to Smt. Renu Jain, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and case law. 2. On ground No. 1 2, the AO directed the assessee to produce books of account, bills and vouchers, which were examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee was asked to explain the business purpose for which interest was paid to Smt. Renu Jain. It was also found that interest paid to Smt. Renu Jain has also been disallowed during the preceding year 2008-09, therefore, ₹ 2,49,000/- was disallowed. Both the additions were challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and detailed written submission of the assessee is incorporated in the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n deleted. He has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is reproduced in the appellate order. Copy of the order of Tribunal is placed on record and provided to the ld. DR. The ld. DR did not dispute the order of the Tribunal. 4. On consideration of the above facts, we are of the view, the departmental appeal has no merit on both the grounds of appeal. The AO made the addition by following th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
