TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or payment of commission duly signed by these payees confirming the same. b) in not following ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for the AY 2008-09 accepting 1273% of commission as reasonable when the percentage of commission paid during this year is less i.e. 12.28% of the turnover. II. in taking the cost of acquisition of property No. DW 0078 Block -S Nirvana country South City -II Gurgoan at Rs.66,67,472 only and not taking into account the interest of Rs.22,30,640/- on funds borrowed to finance the purchase of the said property which collectively make out the cost of acquisition of the said property as held by the various high courts including the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court, when the same had been capitalized and not claimed under any head of account in the earlier years. III. a) in not allowing the interest of Rs.22,51,908/- (it should be Rs.22,30,640/-) on the funds borrowed to finance the purchase of property No. DW 0078 Block - S Nirvana Country South City Gurgoan towards it cost of acquisition on the basis that it has been claimed against annual value assessable for the 33 months period when no such claim has been made or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of IRCTC Ltd and involving in the management of serving food and packed items in the trains, and running two hotels. The assessee filed return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 1501609/-. Accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.09.2011. In response to the notice the assessee filed necessary details before the ld Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) at Rs. 6248450/- and passed on 28.03.2013 and penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and therefore, both the parties are in appeal before us. 4. First we take up the appeal of the assessee where ground No. 1 is against disallowance of Rs. 50000/- out of commission paid. The assessee has paid a commission of Rs. 876850/-. Assessee was asked to produce the party wise expenses of these expenses which was explained that customer visit the hotel through brokers such as Rickshaw and Taxiwalas and they are paid on the basis of room tariff of the day. The ld Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 50000/- out of the same. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the AO. With respect to the other property the interest upto 27.08.2009 was allowed to be capitalized as assessee acquired the said property then only. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the ld Assessing Officer. 10. The ld Authorised Representative submitted that assessee has paid interest of Rs. 3891698/- on purchase of property in Assessment Year 2003-04 but sold on 24.06.2009. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is that assessee's case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 and Bombay High Court in case of Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd Vs. CIT 193 ITR 694. 11. The ld Departmental Representative vehemently contested and defended the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The limited issue in this ground of appeal is that assessee has purchased one property in 2003-04 but possession of the property was taken on 12.10.2006 which was sold on 24.06.2009. The assessee has purchased the property for Rs. 6667472/- and has also paid interest thereon. The assessee indexed cost of acquisition as well as the interest paid considering the same a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. 16. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. Fresh claims made before the appellate authorities are not hit by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd (supra) as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (supra) as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Pruthivi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd 349 ITR 336. Therefore, according to us the ld CIT(A) should have examined the claim of the assessee of allowability of the above expenditure of Rs. 1639790/- as allowable interest expenditure against the business income. In view of this we set aside this ground of appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A). In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly. 17. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions for statistical purposes. 18. Now we come to the appeal of the revenue wherein, following grounds are raised:- "1. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.34,40,831/- made on account of Short Term Capital Gain on th....