TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2007-08 the assessee has made investment of Rs. 88 lacs in shares of Narmada Sugar Limited in earlier year. It was held that the investment in shares of the above company was for the purpose of earning dividend. This investment was made from CC/AC, therefore, the interest on investment was treated for earning dividend. This investment has been shown at Rs. 88 lacs. Considering the disallowance made in earlier years, the interest @ 12% on the above investment, which comes to Rs. 10,56,000/-, was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. The matter was carried in appeal to the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A), following the orders of earlier years, restricted the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 2,74,614/-. The mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 because the same investment of Rs. 88 lacs is coming out from the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 5. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in ITA Nos. 395/Ind/2010, 28/Ind/2016 and 386/Ind/2015. 6. The next issue in ITA No. 28/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 is the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. The short facts of the case are that in the assessment year 2008-09 the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 1,52,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act under the head "printing and stationary expenses". The Assessing Officer proved that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 1,52,000/- to Morya Printers for printing balance sheet, TDS not de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. On issue of amount already paid during the year or amount shown payable as on 31st March of every year, the various courts have different views i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) has held that when there are to views on an issue, the view in favour of the assessee has to be preferred. Therefore, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). Further the recipient are NBFC, therefore, not possible to not be assessed to tax, these payments were related for A.Y. 2009-10 and return for A.Y. 2009-10 already might have been filed by these N....