TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the order of the ld. CIT(A), Panaji in ITA No. 142/PNJ/13-14 dt. 24.9.2014 for the A.Y 2010-11. Shri B. Balakrishna, ld. DR represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Sandip Bhandare, CA represented on behalf of the Assessee. ITA No. 321/PNJ/2014 - 2. It was submitted by the ld. DR that in ground no. 2 the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting part of the addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A r/w rule 8D. It was the submission that the Assessee had made investment in shares by using borrowed funds. It was the submission that the investment was to the extent of Rs. 10.77 crores. It was the submission that the AO had made disallowance u/s 14A and the same was reduced by the ld. CIT(A). It was the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elite Enterprises as also the decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court referred to supra, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in the hands of the Assessee. Consequently, ground no. 2 of the Revenue's appeal stands dismissed. 5. In respect of ground no. 3, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the issue was against the action of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of expenditure of interest paid on loans taken at interest and advances to sister concerns without charging any interest. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the same. It was the submission that that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 6. In reply, the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atives and persons who are covered u/s 40A(2) of the Act whereas the interest paid to the bank was below 18%. It was the submission that consequently the AO had disallowed the interest payment in excess of 20%. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had enhanced the same to 22%. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 9. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that no comparable case had been produced proving the rate of interest paid to the partners and relatives to be excessive. It was the submission that no disallowance itself was called for. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, when invoking the provisions of Sec. 40A(2) of the Act comparable case is one of the requirement. Here....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Co. Pvt. Ltd. referred to supra, as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Realest Builders and Services Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 202 and as the Assessee has offered the income on the completion of the villas and this fact is not disputed by the Revenue, we are of the view that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. Thus, ground no. 5 of the Revenue's appeal stands dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. CO No. 43/PNJ/2014 : 14. At the time of hearing of the Cross objection, the ld. AR submitted that he did not wish to press the Cross objection. Consequently, the Cross objection filed by the Assessee stands....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... partly allowed. 17. In respect of ground nos. 3 & 3A it was submitted that the said grounds are against the action of ld. CIT(A) in reducing the disallowance of the interest paid to partners, relatives and persons who are covered u/s 40A(2) of the Act. It was the submission that the issue was identical to ground no. 4 of the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 321/PNJ/2014. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the finding in respect of ground no. 4 in ITA No. 321/PNJ/2014 would apply to this ground also. 18. We have considered the submissions. As we have already dismissed the Revenue's appeal being ITA No. 321/PNJ/2014, more so, ground no. 4 of the said appeal, on identical reasoning ground nos. 3 & 3A in the Revenue's appeal ....