TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned C1T(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in treating an amount of Rs. 12,15,015/- on account of interest on FDRs to be 'income from other sources'. ii) That the above said addition has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that the FDRs being made out of business expediency, the interest earned on jem, as such, goes to reduce the cost of work in progress. 3. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not at owing benefit of expenses incurred in relation to earning of said in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead the same was adjusted from the cost of work-in-progress. The AO accordingly, assessed the interest income under the head "income from other sources" vide his order dated 19.11.2010 passed u/s. 153A read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 4.3.2013 has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by upholding the action of the AO in assessing the interest income of Rs. 12,15,015/- under the head "Income from other sources." 5. Against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that the issue in dispute is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-12 as well as the copy of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR did not controvert the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assesse and relied upon the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the decision mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We have also gone through the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for the subsequent assessment years i.e. 2010-11 & 2011-12 wherein the assessee's contention was accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) and similar additions was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. DR could not produce any order of the higher authorities contrary to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) ....