Appeals partially allowed, issues remanded for fresh assessment. Tribunal stresses commercial expediency and legal provisions.

The appeals were partly allowed, with the issues remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of relevant precedents and facts. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of commercial expediency and proper application of legal provisions, including Sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without proper notice.
2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
3. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for interest expenses related to investment in a partnership firm.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Ex-Parte Order:
The appellant contended that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was ex-parte and without valid service of notice or any report from the Assessing Officer (A.O.), making it arbitrary, illegal, and void. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were consolidated for convenience and disposed of through a consolidated order.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The core issue in ITA No. 3572/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10 was the disallowance of Rs. 5,64,50,224/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The Assessing Officer had made this disallowance, which included Rs. 5,41,45,279/- on account of interest not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal and confirmed the entire disallowance. The Tribunal referred to its own previous order for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, where it was held that the provisions of Section 14A were not applicable as the profit earned was taxed in the hands of the partnership firm, and not directly in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified.

3. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii):
In ITA No. 1292/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11, the issue was the disallowance of Rs. 4,28,65,241/- under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest expenses related to investment in a partnership firm. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenses, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the investment was made for commercial expediency and not to earn interest. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that if the borrowed funds were used for business purposes, the interest should be allowed. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had sufficient internal accruals and surplus funds, indicating that not all investment was out of borrowed funds. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not justified.

Remand to Assessing Officer:
Both parties agreed that all relevant facts were not available on record for applying the precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order, taking into consideration the relevant precedents.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of the relevant precedents and facts. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of commercial expediency and the proper application of legal provisions, including Sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

---