2014 (1) TMI 746

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it. 2.1 The relevant facts are that during the year under consideration, the assessee, a company engaged in the business of real estate and trading in TDR had let out its premises to M/s I- flex Solution Ltd and M/s Jet Airways Ltd and received a rent of Rs.35,55,291/- and Rs.61,24,604/- respectively. In this connection, the assessee had taken a deposit of Rs.75,00,000/- from M/s I-flex Solution Ltd and Rs.68,30,461/- from M/s Jet Airways Ltd by way of interest free security deposit. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3), the AO calculated a notional interest @ 12% of the interest free security deposits of Rs. 75 lacs and Rs.68,30,461/- taken by the assessee from the said parties and added an amount of Rs.13,09,827/- under the head 'incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnual value of the property. In the absence of any difference in facts brought out by the Revenue for the year under consideration, we, following the said decision of the ITAT, delete the impugned addition made by the lower authorities on account of notional interest on security deposit for computing the annual value of the property. Accordingly, Ground no. 1 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 3. Ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal relate to the disallowance of Rs.2,82,935/- on account of the claim of depreciation. 3.1 The relevant facts are that the assessee, during the year under consideration, had claimed depreciation on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.2,82,935/-. However, in the assessment framed, the AO disallowed the claim as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, in the assessment framed, the AO disallowed the impugned interest and added the same back to the total income of the assessee as there is no agreement with M/s Dosti Corporation and the entire arrangement appears to be sham. 4.2 On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO as evidence had been furnished by the assessee to prove the advances had been made for commercial consideration for making investments in flats for the purpose of business after noting that the loans had been advanced to the same parties for the A.Y. 2005- 06 also. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the Revenue has raised these grounds in the appeal before us. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions on this issue and perused the material on record. I....