9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Ld.CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the said order, has held that if interest has been paid by an assessee for acquiring or construction assets that are used for earning taxable income then his claim for interest expenditure has to be allowed. - Revenue appeal dismissed. - ITA No.5909/MUM/2013 (A. Y.2010-11) - - - Dated:- 27-5-2015 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by Shri Sachhidanand Dubey Respondent by Shri Neeraj Sheth O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and it is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-21 dated 30/7/2013 for assessment year 2010-11. Grounds of appeal read as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 are reproduced below: 2. In Grounds No. 1 and 2, the Revenue has agitated the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the income on sub lease of land and the maintenance income under the head business income and allowing of various expenses, including the maintenance income claimed by the assessee as business expenses as against the findings of the AO that no business activity has been carried out by the assessee and the consequent disallowance of the expenses. 2.1 The relevant facts are that the assessee, a company engaged in the business of developers of Biotech Park, construction, leasing and sale of commercial properties, in its return had declared a business loss of ₹ 3,80,55,754/-, income from House Property at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entical facts. The Tribunal, for said order, in turn, has relied on the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11.09.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06, wherein it has been held that the assessee has commenced its business activity in March, 2004. In view of the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on his own orders for the earlier assessment years, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal, and also since the Revenue is not in a position to bring any contradictory facts during the year under consideration, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and thus the same deserves to be upheld. Resultantly, Grounds No. 1 and 2 are dismissed. 3. In Ground No. 3, the Revenue has agitated the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
