9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t:- the impugned order that interest free loans were given to the persons whose properties were used by the assessee for showrooms and godowns, on which no rent was paid. It can be seen from the impugned order that the AO himself, while passing order u/s 143(3) for the AY 2009-10, accepted the assessee’s submissions on this score and did not make any such addition. When interest free loans were given to the parties from whom the assessee had taken premises for its business purpose without paying any rent, the notional interest on such loans can be considered as quid pro quo of rent. Since the AO has himself accepted the assessee’s case, in his order for AY 2009-10, we hold that no interference can be made in the impugned order on this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2009-10, despite the fact that the ITAT order for AY 2000-01 is too far from the AY 2008-09 is question and cannot bind the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the AO disallowed certain expenses. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2000-01. 4. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. As such, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal ex parte qua the assessee. In so far as the deletion of the addition is concerned, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) deleted such addition by relying on the Tribunal order passed in assessee s own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on such loans can be considered as quid pro quo of rent. Since the AO has himself accepted the assessee s case, in his order for AY 2009-10, we hold that no interference can be made in the impugned order on this issue. This ground is not allowed. 7. The last effective ground is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 6,13,200/- made on account of conversion expenses. The AO noticed from the Profit Loss Account that a sum of ₹ 6,13,200/- paid as conversion charges was claimed as deduction. In his opinion, this was a capital expenditure and, hence, could not be allowed. The ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition after noticing that the property in respect of which the assessee paid conversion charges to MCD, was belonging to Smt. Sar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
