TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enience. 2. In this batch of appeals, lead assessment year is assessment year 1996-97, for which there are three appeals, two are cross appeals and one appeal, filed by the assessee, which emanate from the order passed by the AO in the set aside proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 251 on certain issues. 3. Being lead year, we taken up the said appeals for assessment year 1996-97, first. 4. The cross appeals filed for assessment year 1996-97 are directed against the order of CIT(A) IV, Mumbai, dated 12.03.2001, wherein several ground along with several sub grounds were originally raised by the assessee. At the time of hearing, the AR however has, submitted concise grounds of appeal, which have been perused and accepted in substitution of the original grounds of appeal. Assessment year 1996-97: ITA no. 3006/Mum/2001 : Assessee's appeal ITA no. 3620/Mum/2001 : Department's appeal 5. Ground no. 1 raised in assessee's appeal and both the grounds, i.e. grounds no. 1 & 2 raised in the department's appeal involve common issue relating to assessee's claim for depreciation on various assets given on lease. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee were not put to use by the lessee. 10. The AO, therefore, disallowed depreciation as claimed by the assessee on all the leased assets targeted by him. In so far as transactions under SLB, i.e. serial no. i to vii were concerned, the AO observed that the transactions were an eyewash and the assessee had used them as colorable device to lower its taxable income. Even in the proceedings before the CIT(A), a circular was confronted, bearing no. F.No. 225/186/2000-ITA-II, dated 9.2.2001, which referred to the impugned issue, "in case of sale and lease back of assets without any alteration in the situation of assets and its working the denial of depreciation claimed has to be considered, keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd.". The basic reply of the assessee was : a) technically it is sale and lease back but actually it is regular lease of new equipment, acquired within the financial year, wherein the lessee has already bought the equipment before the lease arrangement. In which case, the equipment is sold by the lessee to lessor and takes its back on lease; b) Circular dated 09.02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A), it was reiterated that the moment the leased asset is sent to the lessee, the asset is put to use, so far as the lessor is concerned, i.e. the assessee in the present case. 17. This argument did not find favour with the CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance of the depreciation claimed by the assessee in transactions at serial nos. xv and xvi. 18. The CIT(A), therefore concluded that a) transactions at serial nos. i to vii in SLB transactions, on which depreciation was claimed, the disallowance was sustained b) transactions at serial no. viii to xiv on which depreciation was claimed was allowed (the department is appeal in ITA No. 3620/Mum/2001) c) transactions at serial no. xv & xvi, depreciation could not be allowed on the ground that the assets put on lease by the assessee bank had not been put to use by the lessees, depreciation as disallowed was sustained. 19. Against these observations by the CIT(A) in (a) and (c), as above, the assessee is in appeal. 20. The AR pointed out that the issue of sale and lease back had been an issue of dispute and the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of IndusInd Bank, ITA no. 65....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disallowed. The DR pleaded that the tests have to be applied on the transactions impugned by the AO to finally come to a conclusion for allowance of the depreciation. 24. With regard to the transaction held to be not genuine by the AO and which has been reversed by the CIT(A), i.e. in favour of the assessee, the DR pointed out that the report of the Court Receiver was not available to the AO, which in itself was violation of natural justice and a good ground for the issue to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. 25. On the issue of assets not put to use by the lessees, the DR relied on the observations of the AO. 26. In the rejoinder, the AR submitted that the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the revenue authorities and the DR, i.e. IndusInd and MidEast, has now been impliedly overruled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cosmo Films Ltd. (supra) and the same therefore cannot be relied upon in view of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 27. With regard to CIT(A) not allowing the AO to have access to the Court Receiver's report, the AR pointed out that during the course of hearing, the CIT(A) had not only discussed the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned here. The order became the subject matter before the Single Judge, before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which was later referred to the Hon'ble Double Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The fact that the issue impugned before us was a matter of civil dispute between the lessor and lessee, itself goes to prove the genuiness of the transaction. 31. In any case, the issue of SLB transaction and in particular the issue of ownership of asset, also has been laid to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. Vs CIT, in CA No. 3286 to 3290 of 2008, wherein the question that was sought to be answered was "Whether the appellant (assessee) is the owner of the vehicles which are leased out by it to its customers". The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, concluded, extracted from para 28, "From a perusal of the lease agreement and other related factors, as discussed above, we are satisfied of the assessee's ownership of the trucks in question" (para 28, page 28). 32. Coming to the issue of finance lease, wherein the CIT(A) sustained the disallowance because the usage of the equipment lease out could not be substantiated. On going through the decision of the jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9) In the case of Prakash Leasing Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (208 Taxman 204) Karnataka High Court held that in the case of finance lease transaction, the lessor is eligible to claim depreciation. 10) Without prejudice to the above, if depreciation on leased asset is not allowed then capital recovery (principal amount included in lease rental income) should be allowed". 33. We also find that the last two transactions are also covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Indian Management Advisors & Leasings Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, reported in 51 ITD 566 (Del), as mentioned earlier. 34. After having examined all the transactions which have been impugned before us, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for the claim of depreciation under all the three circumstance, i.e. Sale lease back, genuineness of transaction and asset having being put to use. We, therefore, allow ground no. 1 the assessee's appeal and dismiss both the grounds of the department's appeal. 35. Ground no. 2, raised in the grounds of appeal of the assessee is not pressed at the time of hearing before us. The same is therefore, dismissed. 36. Ground no. 3 is on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ground no. 3 of the assessee's appeal is thus partly allowed. 43. Ground no. 4 pertains to disallowance of stamp duty of Rs. 2,89,745/-. 44. The AR pointed out that stamp duty was paid on lease agreement on capital asset, which was added back in the computation, which might have escaped attention of the revenue authorities. The disallowance has resulted in double disallowance. 45. The DR relied upon the observations of the revenue authorities. 46. We have gone through the computation and we find that the assessee had added back the expense in its computation. Since the amount has already been added back, the revenue authorities erred in making a further disallowance, which has resulted in the double disallowance. 47. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,89,745/- and direct the AO to delete the same. 48. The ground no. 4 is, therefore, allowed. 49. Ground no. 5 is not pressed, hence it is dismissed. 50. Ground no. 6 pertains to disallowance of Rs. 12,00,000/- paid to CCI for membership. 51. The revenue authorities have held the expense to be of capital in nature and have disallowed the same. 52. Before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed, as it has been held to be capital in nature. 62. The DR placed reliance on the observations of the revenue authorities. 63. Having heard the rival contentions, it is not disputed that the property was repossessed from tenant after paying it off, and it is for the betterment of title of a capital asset, therefore, the expense has to be held to be of capital in nature. In the light of these observations, we, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow depreciation as per law after verification of the dates of payment for repossession, because, the date of repossession itself would indicate the asset having put to use by the assessee, because till such time, the tenanted property cannot be held to be used by the assessee for the purposes of its business. 64. Grounds no. 9 & 10 are not pressed, hence, the same are dismissed. 65. Ground no. 11 is against the levy of interest u/s 234A, therefore the return of income admittedly filed in time but was signed by the General Manager and Chief Manager and not by the Managing Director. The revenue authorities, thus held the return to be invalid and levied interest u/s 234A. 66. The AR submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellant submits that it is now well settle principal of law that an opportunity ought to be given by the assessing officer to rectify the defect in the return of income and if the appellant rectifies such defect it relates back to the original date of filing of the return. The defect in appellants case was rectifiable however the AO without giving opportunity to the appellant h declared the return void. He the AO is not justified in levying the interest u/s 234A of the Act". 68. We have heard the rival contentions and are of the opinion that the return was merely defective not invalid and the defect was of such a nature that it could have been removed, but the revenue authorities harped themselves on technicalities. Placing reliance on the cited cases and the decision of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others, reported in 167 ITR 471, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observes, "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred,........", the Hon'ble Court further observes, "There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there was threat to very existence. The appellant relies on: CIT vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd (219 ITR 521) - Supreme Court CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (284 ITR 679) - Bombay High Court CIT vs Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd (82 ITR 166 - Supreme Court CIT us Jagatjit Distilling and Allied Industries Ltd (4 1 ITR 328) Punjab High Court All India Reporter Ltd vs CIT (49 ITR 196) - Bombay High Court". 74. The DR placed reliance on the decision of the revenue authorities and after we have heard the arguments of both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the amounts so paid were in fact for the purposes of sooth running of the business and withdrawal of the cases by the litigants. On going through the cases cited before us, respectfully following them, we allow the expenses as claimed by the assessee. 75. We, therefore, set aside the case of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the expenses as revenue. 76. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no. 4892/Mum/2001 is allowed. ITA no. 5840/Mum/2003 : Assessee's appeal for AY 1997-98: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeals filed for AY 1998-99 are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-Central IV, Mumbai dated 11.06.2004. The assessee has raised the following grounds: "GROUND NO.1: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,32,74,086/ - on leased assets made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 22, (hereinafter referred to as DCIT). GROUND NO. 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,58,39,519/- out of the total depreciation of Rs. 12,70,02,180/-, being depreciation claimed on the year end stock of government and other approved securities. GROUND NO.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of law charges of Rs.1,97,500/- made by the DCIT, on the ground that they were in the nature of capital expenditure as they, in his opinion were incurred for the purpose of creating, procuring or completing appellant's title to the banking business. The expenditure pertained to legal expenses incurred by the Bank in defending cases in respect of certain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....involved in Cross appeals filed for AY 1996-97 has already been decided by us in the foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow ground no. 1 in the assessee's and dismiss the grounds raised in revenue's appeal. 90. The issue involved in Ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is not pressed, the ground is therefore, dismissed. 91. The issue involved in Ground no. 3 of the assessee's appeal is not pressed, the ground is therefore, dismissed. 92. The issue involved in Ground no. 4 of the assessee's appeal pertains to disallowance of depreciation claimed at Rs. 3,15,900/- on premises acquired by the assessee. 93. A similar issue has already been decided by us in ground no. 8 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1996-97 in foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow ground no. 4 of the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that CIT(A) did not do anything which was beyond either his jurisdiction or power. 100. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the issue impugned before us. It is an undenied fact that the issue did not find part of the regular assessment. It was only in the course of appeal proceedings before the CIT(A), that the AO, through a letter, asked the CIT(A) to consider the issue of 14A. Considering the fact that the provision was introduced with effect from 01.04.1962, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A), excersing co-terminus powers vested in him, that of an assessing officer, informed the assessee, with the letter received by him from the AO. This is not the case, where the CIT(A) has made an addition without informing the assessee. We are, therefore, in agreement with the action of the CIT(A), seeking comments from the assessee and then making the statutory disallowance, as contemplated in the newly inserted section. However, we find that the disallowance, as made by the CIT(A) is excessive. In these circumstances, we accept the suggestion of the AR that disallowance at 10% of the exempt income would suffice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5,91,488 4 Shell Hotel I 6,82,4 5 Shell Hotel II 1,43,137 6 Satyam Computers 30,95,515 7 Savai Printers 8,62,853 8 N.K.Industries 33,79,688 9 Neelachal Auto Ltd. 9,33,858 10 Neelachal Auto Ltd. 18,51,364 11 Dagger Forst Tools P. Ltd. 15,37,818 12 Indo Gulf Fertilisers 6,88,62,531 13 Bhansali Organics Ltd. 6,82,172 14 Dagger Forst Tools P. Ltd. 28,41,328 8,67,53,551 105. The common issue involved in Ground no. 1 of the assessee's appeal as well as the sole ground involved in revenue's appeal relates to the assessee's claim for depreciation on the various assets given on lease. 106. A similar issue involved in Cross appeals filed for AY 1996-97 has already been decided by us in the foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow ground no. 1 of the assessee's and dismiss the ground involved in revenue's appeal. 107. An issue involved in Ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancial position of the assessee and take a decision on the availability of non interest bearing funds with the assessee. This is a case of compulsory disallowance to be made, if the assessee has an income, which he claims to be exempt. For the year in question, we can take a decision on the quantum of disallowance, which may vary. 118. In the instant case, the AR, in the synopsis filed before us has agreed to accept a disallowance of 10% on the income claimed as exempt. We find that the above suggestion made by the assessee/AR is quite reasonable. 119. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the issue and direct the AO to compute the disallowance at 10% of the income claimed as exempt. 120. The ground of appeal, is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 121. In the result: appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed & appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. ITA No. : 52/Mum/2005 : Assessee's appeal for AY 2000-2001 : ITA No. : 9657/Mum/2004 : Revenue's appeal for AY 2000-2001 : 122. These Cross appeals filed for AY 2000-01 are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-Central IV, Mumbai dated 23.11.2004. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A similar issue involved in Cross appeals filed for AY 1996-97 has already been decided by us in the foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow ground no. 1 of the assessee's appeal and dismiss the sole ground raised by the revenue. 126. The issue involved in Ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is not pressed, the ground is therefore, dismissed. 127. The issue involved in Ground no. 3 of the assessee's appeal pertains to disallowance of depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,84,310/- on premises acquired by the assessee. 128. A similar issue has already been decided by us in ground no. 8 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1996-97 in foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow this ground for statistical purposes. 129. Ground no. 4 The issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 14,81,57,360/- under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue authorities and the working submitted before us. We find that the issue was dealt with by the AO and also the working suggested by the CIT. We find that the working suggested by the CIT is plainly a change of an opinion, which only renders the issue outside the scope of revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 141. In the light of the above observation, we cancel the revision proceedings and restore the order of the AO. 142. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA 53/Mum/2005 : Assessee's appeal for AY 2001-02: ITA 370/Mum/2005 : Revenue's appeal for AY 2001-02: 143. These Cross appeals filed for AY 2001-02 are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-Central IV, Mumbai dated 23.11.2004. The assessee has raised the following grounds: "GROUND NO. 1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) erred confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.3,34,50,815/- on leased assets made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-22. GROUND NO.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.32,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee's appeal is not pressed, the ground is therefore, dismissed. 148. The issue raised in Ground no. 3 of the assessee's appeal pertains to disallowance of depreciation claim of Rs. 2,55,880/- on premises acquired by the assessee. 149. A similar issue has already been decided by us in ground no. 8 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1996-97 in foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow this ground for statistical purposes. 150. Ground no. 4 Identical issue has been decided by us in ITA No. 51/Mum/2005, in the preceding year. Since the issue is the same, we do not intend to deviate from our own decision and we restore the issue to the file of the AO with similar directions, as given by us in assessment year 1998-99. 151. The ground of appeal, is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 152. In the result: appeal of the assessee is partly allowed & appeal of the revenue stands dismissed ITA No. 3304/Mum/2005: Assessee's appeal for AY 2001-02: 153. This appeal of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure Rs. 13,32,31,440/- (71.14 % of exempt income) under the provisions of section 1 4A of the Income Tax Act. GROUND NO.5 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of bad debts of Rs.6,80,31,892/- written off during the year and claimed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act on the ground that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) was applicable in the instant case. " 157. In its grounds of appeal, the revenue has raised following ground: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation of Rs.91,74,660/- in respect of assets leased to various parties ignoring the fact that the real nature of transaction with the parties are purely one of finance rather than lease. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's claim of loss on revaluation of investment of Rs 10.36 crores ignoring the fact that any loss arising out of revaluation of capital assets is not allowable as revenue e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c facts are that within the instant year, as per the directives of the Reserve bank of India, the assessee holding stocks of UTI US 64, as Available for Sale (AFS), i.e SIT, to Held for Maturity (HTM), i.e. investments. As the assessee made the transfer on the directions of RBI, it revalued the securities at market rate, which, at that point of time was less than the book value, which resulted in the loss. This loss, the AO treated to be notional loss and disallowed. 170. The CIT(A), placing reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of State bank of Mysore vs DCIT, reported in 33 SOT 7 (Blore) . 171. The department is in appeal before the ITAT 172. Before us the DR supported the observations of the AO, whereas, the AR supported the observations of the CIT(A) and placed reliance on the above decision. 173. After hearing both the parties, we do not intent to disturb the findings of the CIT(A) and consequentially reject the ground, as raised by the department. 174. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 175. In the result: appeal of the assessee is partly allowed & appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. ITA 151/Mum/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e involved in Ground no. 1 of the assessee's appeal is general in nature and, as such, no adjudication is called for. 179. The issue involved in Ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is with regards to assessee's claim for depreciation of Rs. 1,43,24,789/-on the various assets given on lease. 180. A similar issue has already been decided by us in ground no. 1 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1996-97 in foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal. 181. Issue involved in Ground no. 3 is not pressed, the ground is therefore, dismissed 182. Issue involved in Ground no. 4 of the assessee's appeal pertains to disallowance of depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,07,262/- on premises required by the assessee. 183. A similar issue has already been decided by us in ground no. 8 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1996-97 in foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and dismiss ground no. 2 of the revenue's appeal. 196. In the result: appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. ITA 7348/Mum/2007 : Assessee's appeal for AY 2004-05: ITA 7625/Mum/2007 : Revenue's appeal for AY 2004-05: 197. These Cross appeals filed for AY 2004-05 are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-Central IV, Mumbai dated 11.10.2007. The assessee has raised the following grounds: "GROUND NO.1: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (hereinafter, referred to as CIT) erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,07,84,267/- on leased assets made by the DCIT. GROUND NO. 2 The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,13,72,526/- out of the total depreciation of Rs. 26,02,49,768/-, being depreciation claimed on the year end stock of government and other approved securities. GROUND NO.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,86,536/- claimed as depreciation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- on premises acquired by the assessee. 203. A similar issue has already been decided by us in ground no.8 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1996-97 in foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow this ground for statistical purposes. 204. Issue involved in Ground no.4 of the assessee's appeal pertains to disallowance under section 14A. Identical issue has been decided by us in ITA No. 51 /Mum/2005. Since the issue is the same, we do not intend to deviate from our own decision and we restore the issue to the file of the AO with similar directions, as given by us in assessment year 1998-99. 205. The ground of appeal, is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment year 2004-05 : Department's appeal: 206. Issue involved in ground no.1 is with regards to the claim of bad debts of Rs. 27.64 crores. On identical facts, we have already given our findings in ITA No.549/Mum/2007, wherein we have dismissed the ground of appeal filed by the department. 207. Ground no.2 : We have already ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing claim of loss of Rs. 2,54,00,885/- on revaluation of foreign exchange. c) The appellant craves to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. d) The appellant, therefore, prays on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A), Central-39, Mumbai may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." 215. The issue involved in Ground no.1 of the assessee's appeal is general in nature and did not call for any interference. 216. The common issue involved in Ground no.2(i) of the assessee's appeal as well as Ground no. (a) of the revenue's appeal relates to the assessee's claim for depreciation of Rs. 37,50,717/- on the various assets given on lease. 217. A similar issue involved in Cross appeals filed for AY 1996-97 has already been decided by us in the foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow ground no. 2(i) of the assessee's appeal and dismiss ground (a) of the revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Special Bench, as referred (supra) and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to deviate from the order of the CIT(A), which we sustain. 227. The ground of appeal (b), therefore, rejected. 228. Issue involved in Ground no. 2(iii) of the assessee's appeal pertains to disallowance of depreciation claimed at Rs.1,43,938/- on premises acquired by the assessee. 229. Similar issue has already been decided by us in ground no.8 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1996-97 in foregoing portion of this order. Since all the material facts relevant thereto as well as arguments raised by the Ld. Representatives of both the sides are similar, we follow our decision rendered in AY 1996-97 and allow Ground no. 2(iii) of the assessee's appeal. 230. Issue involved in Ground no.2(iv) of the assessee's appeal is with regards to disallowance u/s 14A. The facts are that the assessee, during the year under consideration computed the disallowance, suo moto, at Rs.15,84,000/-. The AO, applying Rule 8D, computed the disallowance of Rs.10,09,11,791/- 231. The assessee, approached the CIT(A), who sustained the observations and working of the AO for ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue arises out of order of the CIT(A) Central IV, Mumbai, dated 11.08.2003. The revenue has raised following grounds: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO without appreciating that the leasing transactions entered into by the assessee is purely in the nature of finance transactions. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,01,462/-which has been held by the AO as chargeable interest income." 242. Since the issue of interest itself has been deleted, no question of levy of interest tax survives, as the assessee was held to be the owner. Accordingly, we dismiss ground 1 & 2 of the revenue's appeal. 243. In the result, revenue's appeal stands dismissed. Interest tax Appeal no.41/Mum/2003 : Revenue's appeal for AY 1997-98: 244. This appeal of the revenue arise out of order of the CIT(A) Central IV, Mumbai, dated 11.08.2003. In its appeal, the revenue have raised following grounds: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in allowing relief of an amount of Rs.2,05,28,954/ - without considering a) That the leasing transaction pertaining to AVS Indu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able interest. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the lease transactions entered into by the assessee are nothing but financial transactions in view of the RBI's circular no. FSC.BC. 18/24/-01-20001/93-94 dated 19.2.1994 and hereby erred in deleting the amount of Rs.1,07,77,637/- arising out of such transactions treated as chargeable interest by the AO." 250. Since the issue of interest itself has been deleted, no question of levy of interest tax arises, as the assessee was held to be the owner. Accordingly, we dismiss grounds 1, 2 & 3 of the revenue's appeal. 251. In the result, revenue's appeal stands dismissed. Interest tax Appeal No 09/Mum/2005 : Revenue's appeal for AY 1999-00: 252. This appeal of the revenue arises out of order of the CIT(A) Central IV, Mumbai, dated 09.11.2004. In its appeal, the revenue have raised following grounds: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire leasing income shown by the assessee are nothing but income arising out of financial transactions and hence should be treated ....