9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and taken and hence it is considered from the own pool of funds available with the assessee. We also find from the order of the Ld. AO that the AO has rightly disallowed the sum of Rs. 96,616/- @ 12% on the difference between the interest free advances taken and given amounting to Rs. 8,05,137/-. In view of the above discussions, we find that prima facie the order of the Ld. AO is not erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and hence the order of the Pr. CIT is hereby quashed. - I.T.A. No. 111/Viz/2021 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2022 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : C. Subrahmanyam, CA For the Respondents : M.N. Murthy Naik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring funds taken by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the orders passed under the provisions of section 263 of the Act is contrary to the provisions of law. 2. The impugned order passed U/s. 263 of the Act is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 263 of the IT Act. Therefore, the impugned order is to be quashed as not maintainable. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the submissions of the assessee in judicious manner, therefore, his direction to Assessing Officer to disallow a proportionate interest in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest free advances given to sister concerns for the earlier AY. Similar statement was also provided before the Ld. AO for the current AY and the Ld. AR submitted that the AO has rightly disallowed the interest on the excess amount of Rs. 8,05,137/- and hence the order of the Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. AR further pleaded that the order of the Ld. PCIT may be quashed. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that with respect to addition made during the AY for Rs. 2.80 Crs the same balance is still carried forward for the current AY also and hence the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT be upheld. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record and the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
