2014 (2) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee. The Sr.DR has no objection. Therefore, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Now, we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.3102/Ahd/2010 for AY 2003-04. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1.1. The Learned CIT(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.9,45,651/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of proportionate interest expenses to the extent of interest not charged on interest free advances given by the assessee, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 1.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal, thereby both additions made by the AO were deleted. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Ground Nos.1.1 & 1.2 are against the deletion of addition of Rs.94,651/-. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO, whereas the ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and also has filed written submission. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of audit objection which was not even acceptable to the AO. He drew our attention towards Annexure-I of gist of objection in support of this contention. He further submitted that the issue of disallowance of interest on ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, in respect of advance of Rs.64,66,410/- to Karnataka Jewels Ltd., no error in the finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) which was after going through the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2002 could be pointed out by the Learned Departmental Representative. Thus, it is observed that no part of interest bearing fund was utilised for giving advance Rs.64,66,410/- to Karnataka Jewels Ltd.. In respect of balance advance of Rs.43,10,900/- to Karnataka Jewels Ltd., the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) after going through the ledger account of the said party, found that advance was given on 29.3.2004 only. No error in this finding of ht Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)also could be brought on ....