9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming the order of the Assessing Officer. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that no income from attached assets can be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 52,80,810/- on account of interest expense. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of depreciation allowance amounting to ₹ 67,748/-. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the calculation of book profit u/s. 115JB at ₹ 42,77,286/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Shri Harshad S. Mehta and hence, the income assessed by the Assessing Officer ought to have been taxed in the hands of Shri Harshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the appellant. 5. After going through the addition ground filed by the assessee, we noted that the ground is legal ground, which does not require any new facts to be brought on record. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383, the legal ground can be admitted, if no new facts are to be brought on record.However, after going through the additional ground raised by the assessee for all the assessment years involved here before us, we found that the ground is fully academic in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has filed the present appeal against the order of the FAA,as stated earlier. 2.1. During the course of hearing before us,Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee did not press ground no.4,hence same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground no.3 is about disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹ 52,80,810/-.It was brought to our notice that identical issue was decided by the Tribunal in the cases of Sh.Hitesh S Mehta (AY. 1994-95 and 2005-06.vide order dated.12.06.2013-ITA/5587-89/Mum/2011 order dated 26.04.2013-ITA/7726/Mum/2010) and Pratima H Mehta( ITAs No. 1942-44 5500/Mum/2012 -AYs.1998-99,2000-01,2001-02,2008-09 dated 28.08.2013).While going through the said orders of the Tribunal,we find that the issue had been set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
