2018 (4) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 5,33,01,263/- made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(iii). 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its ereturn of income at Rs. 12,23,62,524/- on 28.9.2010. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and later notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 27.8.2011 was issued and another notice u/s. 142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated 16.11.2012 was issued. In response thereto, the A.R. of the assessee attended the proceedings from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n DLF group companies namely M/s DLF Brands Ltd. for AY 2009-10 dated 4.6.2012. He further stated that the observation given in AY 2009-10 is not relevant in AY 2010-11 i.e. in the current year, as the transaction of advancement of loan and charging less interest clearly attract the provision of section 36(iii). In view of above, he requested to quash the impugned order by upholding the addition made by the AO. 5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. of the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order by applying the principle of consistency, which needs to be upheld and requested to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vestments in share of such object of the assessee company, the expenditure incurred on such business investments in the form of interest is an allowable expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes of the appellant company. Therefore, the same cannot be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(iii). For this purpose reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncement: i) India Cement Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 SC. ii) SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 158 Taxmann 74 SC. iii) DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. 298 ITR 294 SC. Considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 15,66,500/- for....