TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before the ITAT was dismissed. The Assessment Year (for short "A.Y."), in the present appeal is A.Y. 2010-11. Before the ITAT, the revenue had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [for short, "CIT(A)"] dated 30th July, 2013. By the said order, the CIT(A) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer (for short "A.O.") passed under Section 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of developers of Bio- Tech Park, construction, leasing and sale of commercial properties. In the return of income tax filed by the assessee on 14th October, 2010, the assessee declared the total income at Rs. Nil under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Other Sources". The CIT(A), after considering what the ITAT had held in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 and more particularly in paragraph 6 thereof, accepted the contention of the assessee and set aside the order of the A.O. on this ground. 4. The second ground on which the order of the A.O. was challenged before the First Appellate Authority was that the A.O. erred in not considering the income recorded under different heads in the Books of Accounts, as falling within the head income from other sources or under the head income from house property and not under the head income from business. The First Appellate Authority, after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that this very issue came up befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d raised before the ITAT was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition in respect of the interest on borrowed capital utilized for construction of the property. When this appeal came up for hearing before the ITAT, the assessee's advocate pointed out that the issues raised in the appeal were answered in favour of the assessee by earlier orders of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10. After considering the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. It is in these circumstances that the matter has come up before us. 6. When this matter had come up on 23rd August, 2018, Mr Suresh Kumar, during the course of his arguments, stated that in the impugned order the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to section 24 of the Act that require the production of a certificate from the person to whom interest is payable to the extent that the interest is payable for the purpose of acquisition of construction of the property? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Honourable ITAT was perverse in not considering the facts as brought on record by the AO? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not considering the findings of the AO that interest being claimed as deduction from rental income whereas the borrowed funds did not have any nexus with the construction or the acquisition of these properties? " 8. Mr Suresh Kumar submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot give rise to any substantial question of law as they are decided only considering the factual aspects of the matter. The ITAT has clearly recorded that the CIT(A), by relying on his own order for the same assessee, for the earlier A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 had observed that the assessee's business for development of Bio-Tech Park was already up and commenced, and therefore, it was held that the sub-lease income was assessable as business income. In fact, these orders of the CIT(A) were subjected to further appeal before the ITAT, which confirmed the orders of the CIT(A). 11. Further, CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the A.O. in respect of interest on borrowed capital utilized for construction of the property. Here also, CIT(....