TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Ground no.1 by the Revenue reads as under :- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officers on account of disallowance of loan processing charges as claimed by the assessee?" 3. After hearing both the sides, we find the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- claimed by the assessee under the head 'loan processing charges' on the ground that these expenses are related to prior period and, therefore, cannot be allowed. We find in appeal the ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi High Court in the case of M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. This factual finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not received any dividend income during the year could not be controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in absence of any contrary material. The ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 6. Ground no.3 by the Revenue reads as under :- "3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. After hearing both the sides, we find the assessee has shown rent receipt of Rs. 2,12,50,000/-. Therefore, it is not coming out clearly from the order of the ld. CIT(A) as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the repair and maintenance expenses related to the new premises at Ajmol Khan Road, Karolbagh. Since the factual details are not coming out clearly, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate this issue afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) considered item-wise and allowed the salary paid to Roshni Mehra and Aradhana Mehra @ Rs. 50,000/- each per month on the basis of their academic qualification and the nature of responsibility discharged by them during the year especially diversification into leasing out of the C.P. Premises etc. which benefited the business a lot. So far as salary paid to Charanjit Lal Mehra and Lata Rani Mehra at the rate of 25,000/- each per month is concerned, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the turnover during the year has come down heavily from Rs. 3.5 crores to Rs. 0.46 crores and the assessee failed to substantiate with evidence, the services if at all rendered by them or their ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng persons are not justified. We do not find any infirmity in the finding given by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue and the assessee is dismissed. 17. Ground no.5 by the Revenue and ground no.3 by the assessee relate to the partial relief are granted by the ld. CIT(A) out of interest paid to the specified persons as per the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act. 18. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the loans and advances given during the year has increased to Rs. 1,03,10,277/- from Rs. 79,88,155/- in the preceding year. From the details furnished by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service has been rendered at all by Chand Mehra to the assessee. However, in the case of advance given to Mehra Sons Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 23,50,000/-, Namita Mehra of Rs. 6,94,914/- and Sakshi Mehra of Rs. 2,57,779/- these were allowed by him on the ground that these advances are for business purposes. So far as advance of Rs. 11,71,865/- to Vinay Mehra is concerned, he gave a finding that the assessee failed to prove with evidence as to whether any service at all has been rendered by Mr. Vinay Mehra and, therefore, he held that these advances are nothing but diversifying of business fund for which he upheld the disallowance of interest. 21. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in app....