TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2010-11, decided against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short 'AO') u/s 143(3) of the Act. We first take up Revenue Appeal ITA No.2274/Mum/2014: The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeals: 1. In holding that the disallowance u/s. 14A as worked out by the AO (Assessing Officer) under Rule 8D is not applicable in the instant case. 1.1 in holding that the interest cost is to be excluded for the purpose of working under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules thereby ignoring that the assessee had the interest-cost is inter-lacing and inter-mixing in nature. 1.2 in not appreciating that the assessee failed to prove the nexus between the funds invested with his nature of activity. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and therefore, he invoked provisions of Rule 8D and made disallowance on account of interest u/s 14A. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee contested the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest has been deleted. 3.3. Being aggrieved the Revenue has contested the appeal before the Tribunal. 3.4. During the course of hearing Ld. DR has submitted that funds of the assessee were mixed, and therefore proportionate disallowance was called for, as has been stated in the grounds raised by the Revenue, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. [248 ITR 432 (SC)]. 3.5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has placed reliance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decision, interest disallowance made by the AO is deleted. However, AO is directed to compute 0.5% of average investments for managerial investments and administrative purposes. This ground of appeal is partly allowed." 3.6. It is noted by us from the balance sheet of the assessee that own funds of the assessee are more than Rs. 3.97 crores whereas investment made in tax free securities is not more than Rs. 33.65 lakhs. Thus, order of Ld. CIT(A) is factually and legally correct on this issue. We take support from the order of the jurisdictional High Court as has been relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). It is further noted from the facts brought before us that loans were taken by the assessee in earlier years. It is informed that no disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting advertisement hoardings and for placement of equipments in the form of mobile towers at terrace, roof-top and other places in the Hotel Neel Kamal's building. The further undisputed facts are that Hotel building is a commercial asset exploited for the purpose of business by the assessee. In the given facts, it is clear that the aforesaid income has been received by the assessee from exploitation of the business asset of the assessee. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances income received from exploitation of a business asset should be treated, as per law, as 'income under the head business'. The assessee has carried out aforesaid activity in systematic and organized manner. Proper agreements have been entered into with the conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that these persons included the interest income in the return and also paid the taxes, relying, upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 (SC), wherein it was held as under: "Whether, where deductee, recipient of income, has already paid taxes on amount received from deductor, department once again cannot recover tax from deductor on same income by treating deductor to the assessee-indefault for shortfall in its amount of tax deducted at source-Held- 'yes'." 5.2. It is further noted by us that this issue has been further settled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent judgment passed in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.160/Mum/201....