TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004-05, i.e. ITA No.1298/Ahd/2009. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Following grounds are without prejudice to each other: 1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) is against Law and facts of the case. 2. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.2,43,679/- incurred by the appellant on the borrowed funds. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant had borrowed funds at lower rate of interest also and therefore the borrowing at higher rate of interest attracted the disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Interest of Rs.39,828/- in respect of loan taken for construction of self ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers of the authorities below and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is justified in making the disallowance since the assessee himself paying the interest @ 6.5% on the loan taken from P.D.Shroff. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. After considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that it would sub-serve the interest of justice if the disallowance is restricted to the interest made in excess of 15%. The AO is accordingly directed to recompute the disallowance. Thus, this ground of assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 6. Ground Nos.3 & 4 are taken together as the grounds pertain to the disallowance of interest in respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1. The order passed u/s.250 of the Act on 21.12.29 for AY 27-8 by CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad upholding the validity of assessment and additions made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2. The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the additions without considering fully and properly the explanation offered and evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1. The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding the following additions/disallowances:- a) Unexplained investment Rs.2,56,365/- 2.2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the above said additions/disallowance. 3.1. Without prejudice and in the alternative, the learned CIT(....