9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under appeal is same as were in preceding A.Y. 2013-2014. These facts are same as have been considered in earlier year. In earlier year, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition, but, no appeal have been filed by the Department except in A.Y. 2009-2010 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal [ 2014 (11) TMI 1174 - ITAT DELHI] for the A.Y. 2009-2010 dismissed the Departmental appeal on the same ground and on same facts. Therefore, this issue is also covered by the Order of ITAT (supra). Prior period expenditure disallowance - HELD THAT:- As is admittedly covered by the Order of ITAT [ 2014 (11) TMI 1174 - ITAT DELHI] Dated 19.11.2014 (supra). Following the same reasons for decision for the A.Y. 2009-2010 on identical facts, we do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made. It was also submitted that NTC has made non-cash investment at Rs.1793.32 lakhs in subsidiary and associated companies as a joint venture to revived certain closed mills. In other words, when no funds are used in investment, then no disallowance of interest expenses under section 14A is applicable. The amount of net investment was same in the preceding assessment year as well as in assessment year under appeal. The details of the same is noted at page-4 of the appellate order. The assessee also relied upon several decisions in support of the contention that addition is wholly unjustified. The Ld. CIT(A) found that ITAT in A.Y. 2009-2010, on similar facts, deleted the addition and Department has accepted the Order of the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. 5. The Ld. D.R. contended that second issue is covered by the Order of ITAT Dated 19.11.2014 (supra). However, on first issue the assessee was not justified in disallowing only Rs.9,05,940/-. 6. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the issues are covered by the Order of ITAT, Dated 19.11.2014 for the A.Y. 2009-2010 (supra). 7. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any justification to interfere with the Order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has specifically submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee made non-cash investment of Rs.1793.32 lakhs in subsidiary and associated companies as joint venture to revive certain closed mills. In other words, no funds are used to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
