TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 1212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004, relating to the assessment year 1998-99. The appeal was admitted on question Nos. 4 to 7, as framed in the Memo of Appeal. Question No. 4: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance of Rs. 11,56,860/- out of interest relating to borrowed capital of Project Work-in Progress could not be made and also considering the facts that similar issue was sub judice before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for Assessment Year 1995-96?" On this issue, the Tribunal held in para 11.3 as follows:- "11.3 For the assessment year 1995-96 (supra), the Tribunal held that the facts for the assessment year 1995-96 were identical with those for the assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been allowed, but for the assessment year 1995-96, where the A.O. made the disallowance. That disallowance was deleted by the learned CIT (A). The Tribunal, for the assessment year 1994-95 (supra) held that total preliminary expenses incurred by the assessee had to be apportioned in the ten successive previous years, for preliminary expenses in accordance with Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, determining the previous year in which the business was commenced or in which the existence of the industrial undertaking was completed or in which the new industrial units commenced operation. The above said legal position have not been refuted. Respectfully following the aforesaid Tribunal order for the assessment year 1995-96, this issue is here....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the year was to the tune of Rs. 31,60,50,000/-, whereas the additions to the fixed assets, were as follows :- Addition before 30.9.1995 Rs. 2,73,54,282/- Addition after 30.9.1995 Rs. 7,08,76,802/ Total : Rs. 9,82,31,084/- It was also seen that the funds raised from the financial institutions during the year, works to the tune to Rs. 24 crores. The A.O. was of the view that the case of the assessee company was covered under Section 35D (I)(ii) of the Income Tax Act; that the assessee had not furnished the cost of projection of the extension of industrial units; that the cost of the projection could not be exceeded the value of the fixed asset added in the year under consideration, which was only to the tune of Rs. 9082 crores; that co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee had claimed less than the allowable expenditure, there was no justification for the disallowance under consideration. In our view, the finding on this question is a finding of fact. The Tribunal being the final authority on recording finding of facts, no interference is required by the High Court with such findings. This question is also decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 7: 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the Debenture Travel Fee, Up-Front Fee and the Processing Fee amounting to Rs. 38,76,541/- were admissible for deduction u/s 36 (i) (ii) of IT Act, 1961?" On this issue, the Tribunal held in para 14 as follows:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h has not been proved to so. The contention of the assessee that this was a working capital loan, has also not been refuted. The loans were, certainly, utilized by the assessee for its business purposes. It was, therefore, that no interest was disallowed. It has been pointed out here that the Tribunal, for the assessment year 1997-98, has directed the A.O. to consider and decide the matter in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1995-96. However, on perusal of the 1995-96, Tribunal order shows that for the year, there was no such disallowance. As such, the observations of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1997-98 are wrong. 14.3. In our view, the stand of the assessee is correct. The very basis of the dis....