9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relating to rejection of interest claim these issues are being set aside by the Tribunal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in all other group cases belonging to Harshad Mehta. See FORTUNE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CC-31, MUMBAI [2015 (8) TMI 1353 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C - Held that:- Set aside the matter of computation of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act to the file of the assessing officer with similar directions X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.4.2014 in ITA No. 4023 & 4024/Mum/2011, has condoned the delay accepting identical explanations of the assessee. He further submitted that the delay had also occurred on identical reasons in the case of other group companies namely Growmore Research & Asset Management Ltd., Growmore Exports Ltd. etc and the Tribunal vide its order dated 17.12.2007 has condoned the delay by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamoorthy (AIR 1998 S.C. 3222). Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the delay has occurred in these cases also for reasons beyond the control of the assessee and accordingly prayed that the delay ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vations made by the Tribunal on an identical issue:- "3. The grounds urged in AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 are identical in nature. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R pressed the grounds relating to the following issues:- a) Rejection of claim of interest expenditure under the normal provisions of the Act; b) Rejection of interest liability under section 115JB of the Act; and c) Computation of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Accordingly, the remaining grounds and also the additional ground urged by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 4. The issue relating to rejection of interest claim in AY 2004-05 to 2006- 07 and also the issues relating to interest listed as (a) and (b) above in AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 go togethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the Revenue. 5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. While disposing the ground relating to the disallowance of interest, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the findings given in the case of Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Eminent Holdings in ITA Nos. 2139, 2140 and 2141/Mum/2013 have followed the decision of the Tribunal given in common group case of Hitesh S. Mehta at para 2.3 of the order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following the findings of the Co ordinate Bench, we restore this issue to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The next common issue relates to charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Identical issue has been adjudicated by the division bench in the case of Fortune Holdings P Ltd (supra) and for the sake of convenience, I extract below the relevant observations made in that case:- "10. With regard to the second limb, the Ld A.R submitted that the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act should be computed, after deducting the tax deductible at source from the income of the assessee. In support of this contention, he invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 to 2003-04 (supra). A perusal of the above order of the Tribunal, we notice that this issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing decisions. He relied upon the cases of Motorola inc. v. DCIT [95 ITD 269 (Del.(SB)], Sedco Fores Drilling Co. Ltd. [264 ITR 320],NGC Network Asia LLC [313 ITR 187] ,Summit Bhatacharya [ 300 ITR (AT) 347 (Bom)(SB)], Vijal Gopal Jindal [ITA No. 4333/Del/2009] & Emillo Ruiz Berdejo [320 ITR 190 (Bom)].DR relied upon the cases of Devine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 3.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that in the case of Devine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C were applicable to the notified person also. Therefore, upholding the order of the FAA to that extent, we hold that provisions of section 234 of the Act are applicable. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
