TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. The grounds of appeals are identically worded except change in the quantum additions challenged. The lead year is the assessment year 2008-09, hence, the facts and the issues are discussed herein below after perusing the orders of the Revenue authorities for that year. The grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2008-09, read as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in treating the interest expenses of Rs. 10,04,744 as allowab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment year 2006-07 and 2007-08, bearing ITA no.65 and 66/Nag./2011, dated 9th January 2013. Following the order of the Tribunal, the impugned addition was deleted. 5. At the outset, we have been informed by the parties appearing before us that on identical facts and circumstances in the past i.e., for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08, in assessee's own case, the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, has decided this issue in assessee's favour vide order dated 9th January 2013. In addition to the said order of the Tribunal, it has also been pleaded that when the withdrawals were made by the partners to the extent either capital or accrued profit, then there should not be any disallowance of interest, if there is no nexus between interest bea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also confirmed the action of the AO. 12. After considering the submission and perusing the orders of the authorities below, we found that the assessee deserves to succeed on the issue involved in both these appeals. The partners have withdrawn their capital, which were credited in the firm. There is no bar to withdraw their capital as they have withdrawn their capital out of the total capital invested in the firm. They have advanced these amounts to another firm i.e. M/s Raju Steel Industries on which they have charged interest and that interest income has been shown in the hands of these partners. Similarly, the partner of M/s Raju Steel Industries has withdrawn some capital from their partnership firm and advanced the money to this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) erred in treating that loan of Rs. 1,66,32,595 and interest accrued thereupon of Rs. 19,72,929 given on the assessee firm by OCAPL did not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) without appreciating that OCAPL and OCSIPL is in the business of alloys and not in money lending business." 9. The admitted factual position was that there was a partner in the firm namely Doly Weighbridge Pvt. Ltd., having 40% share the partnership firm. The said concern was also having 43.33% of shareholding in Orange City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (OCAPL). The said concern was also having 39.99% shareholding in Orange City Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (OCSIPL). It is also an accepted factual position that the firm was not having any shareholding in the said two....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the view taken by the Tribunal, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition. 11. With these brief factual background, we have heard both the sides and thereupon noticed that this issue is also considered by the respected Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, order dated 9th January 2013, and after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ACIT v/s Bhaumik Colours Pvt. Ltd., 118 TTJ 001 (Bom.) and Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 263 (Bom.) deleted the addition. For ready reference in Para-7 is reproduced below:- "7. After considering the order of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A), we found no infirmity in the findings of ....