9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in respect of utilization of borrowed funds; and also, the assessee was liable for payment of substantial amounts of liquidation damages/pre-payment charges in case the assessee made pre-payment of loan repayments - due to contractual restrictions and liquidation damages/pre-payment charges, as aforesaid; it was neither prudent for the assessee to divert any part of borrowed funds for nonbusiness purposes; nor was it prudent to make pre-payment of loan repayments even if the assessee had its own interest free funds. In these specific and peculiar facts and circumstances, there is no case for any disallowance of interest U/s 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5965/Del/2017 ITA No. 5966/Del/2017 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars, u/s 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [ IT Act , for short] out of assessee s claim for interest expenses. At the time of hearing before us in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ ITAT , for short] . representatives of both sides were in agreement that the issue in dispute in both these appeals before us are covered by orders of Coordinate Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi dated 08.02.2019 in ITA No. 1809/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13; and dated 21.12.2018 in ITA No. 3869 3870/Del/2014 for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2010-11 respectively. The aforesaid orders dated 08.02.2019 and 21.12.2018; copies whereof were filed during appellate proceedings in ITAT in the present appeals before us; were passed in assessee s own case; and the identica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both sides patiently and we have perused the materials on record, including the paper book, synopsis etc. filed in the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, carefully. We have also considered the judicial precedents referred to in the record and also the precedents brought to our attention, at the time of hearing before us. (4.1) The common issue involved in both the appeals filed by Revenue is regarding disallowance of interest U/s 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act. As mentioned earlier, the Ld. DR did not dispute the facts contended by the Ld. Counsel for assessee. The relevant facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the investments in mutual funds had not started till the time, the assessee started earning operating income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of the aforesaid specific and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of disallowance of interest U/s 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act, on merits. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. (C) Neither side has brought any facts and circumstances to our attention in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 (to which the present appeals before us, pertain) to distinguish from facts and circumstances of A.Y. 2007-08, 2010-11 and 2012-13 (to which aforesaid orders dated 21.12.2018 and 08.02.2019 of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi pertain); or to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
