2016 (12) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... This court while admitting the appeal on 13.12.2002, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: "Whether the learned ITAT was right in law in disallowing Rs. 5,92,840/- being interest paid to the bank u/s 36(1)(iii) read with Sec.37(1) of the Act and whether the finding is perverse?" 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee company is giving loan to the sick industries within the State of Rajasthan and initially advanced a sum of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- to M/s Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. For providing finance to The Mewar Sugar Mills Limited, the appellant company had taken a loan from M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank to meet with the requirement and demand and subsequently for repayment during the assessment year 199....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion. Hence, the addition, being unjust, is deleted. (relief Rs. 5,82,840/-) 4. The next grievance of the appellant is in regard to not giving any specific finding in regard to the determination of carry forward of unabsorbed business loss and depreciation relating to earlier years even though a claim in this regard was duly made. As the impugned assessment order is absolutely silent in this regard, even though there was a claim as contended for, it would be fair and reasonable, if the concerned authority is directed to give a specific finding in regard to the carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation etc." 4. It is clear that the CIT (Appeals) has on the basis of factual matrix found that the loan was taken. How....