2013 (11) TMI 1780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) 40, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2004-05. 2. Though the assessee company raised five grounds, in the grounds of appeal annexed to Form No. 36, at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that grounds No. 1, 2 3 are not presses and ground No. 5 is general in nature; in short only ground No. 4 is pressed for con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ollowing the findings in the order passed in the case of Shri Hitesh Mehta for A.Y. 2005-06 the claim of interest expenditure was not accepted by the learned CIT(A). Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing the learned counsel placed before us copy of the order passed by ITAT in the case of Shri Hitesh Mehta for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 (ITA No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7. It deserves to be noticed that the assessee filed additional ground alongwith letter dated 31st October, 2013 wherein it was contended that the income assessed by the AO ought to have been taxed in the hands of Shri Harshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the assessee. However, at the time of hearing the learned counsel admitted that this additional ground was wrongly raised and it has no su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X