9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d together, we are disposing them off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 5699/DEL/2016 [Revenue's Appeal] 2. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3 relate to the addition of Rs. 3.68 crores made u/s 2(22(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 3. While scrutinizing the return of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received Rs. 3.68 crores from M/s Mahagun India Pvt Ltd [MIPL]. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is holding more than 10% shares in the said company and was convinced that the provisions of section 2(22(e) of the Act squarely apply and invoking the same, asked to the assessee to explain as to why the loan of Rs. 3.68 crores be not treate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opening balance as on 1.4.2010 was Rs. 40.55 crores. Thereafter, during the year, the assessee has further given loans of Rs. 2 crores on various dates totalling to Rs. 6.33 crores. The said company MIPL has refunded the loans to the extent of Rs. 3.68 crores and closing debit balance was Rs. 2.61 crores. The said ledger account is self-explanatory and clearly shows that the loan was given by the assessee to MIPL and not vice versa. Since this ledger account was before the Assessing Officer who had examined the same before making the addition, we do not find it necessary to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the same facts. We, accordingly, confirm the finding of the CIT(A). Grounds Nos. 1 to 3 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure. 16. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) held as under: "The facts of the matter have been perused the contentions of the AO in the assessment order and the rival submissions of the AR have been considered. There is no dispute in the fact that the amount of loan raised has been parked with the Mahagun India Pvt Ltd. There is direct nexus between amount taken on loan and amount given on loan. The appellant, if he is not earning anything over and above the interest which he is paying to HDFC Bank Ltd, BHW Home Finance and Religare Finvest Ltd. The appellant has received a sum of Rs. 55,09,015/- as interest from Mahagun India Pvt Ltd and has paid interest of Rs. 93,14,857/- on loan taken. The appellant can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td, BHW Home Finance and Religare Finvest Ltd., the same were transferred to MIPL, thus clearly establishing the direct link/nexus between the borrowings and lending. On these facts, we do not find any reason for any disallowance on this count. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire disallowance of Rs. 93,63,773/-. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are dismissed and the solitary grievance raised by the assessee is allowed. 20. Ground No. 6 in Revenue's appeal relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 1 lakh made by the Assessing Officer. 21. While perusing the computation of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 1 lakhs donation as deduction u/s 80G of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
