2014 (8) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case, the learned ITAT has erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,22,13,280/made by the AO u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act being excessive interest paid to associates B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting disallowance of depreciation of Met Masts (wind measure equipment) made by the AO after holding to the effect that the assessee failed to prove that the said assets have been commissioned and put to use for the put to use for the purpose of business during the year under consideration?" 2.0. That the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration showing the total loss of Rs. 15,01,143,1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....making deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act as well as deleting disallowance under Section 32 of the Act, the revenue preferred appeal before the learned ITAT and by impugned judgment and order the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue confirming the order passed by the learned CIT (A). 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the aforesaid proposed questions of law. 3.0. Now, so far as proposed question of law 2(a) i.e. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....during the year under consideration is concerned, Shri Patel, learned advocate for the revenue has vehemently submitted that both the learned CIT(A) as well as learned Tribunal have materially erred in relying upon the certificate of the DGM Wind Mill Resources of the company certifying that in fact the aforesaid was commissioned and put to use for the purpose of business during the year under consideration. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the said certificate as sufficient evidence to prove that the aforesaid assets were commissioned and put to use for the purpose of business during the year under consideration. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow / admit the present Tax Appeal. 4.0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2(a) is answered against the revenue. 5.0. Now, so far as proposed question no.2 (b) referred to herein above is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the assessee did produce the evidence certificate of the DGM Wind Mill Resources of the company who had supervised the Installing in respect to the goods that as such the aforesaid was commissioned and / or put to use for the purpose of business during the year under consideration. It is the case on behalf of the revenue that the aforesaid cannot be a sufficient evidence to prove that the said assets were commissioned and put to use for the purpose of business during the year under consideration. However, it is required to be noted and even noted by the learned Tribun....