2015 (5) TMI 1178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... erred in law and facts in not appreciating that no income from attached assets can be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals ) has erred in law and in facts in not granting deduction of liability amounting to Rs. 9,35,87,628/- towards interest expenditure claimed by the appellant. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating that no interest u/s. 234B and 234C can be levied on the facts of the present case" 2. Ground No.1 & 2were not pressed. Ground No.3 was stated to be covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in group case. Reference was made to the decision dated 5/3/2015 passed in ITA No. 5135& 5136/Mum/2012 & IT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f interest was issued by the custodian have been already concluded which fact has already been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. We, therefore, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this fact while deciding the issue afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) may also direct for the taxing of income in the hands of the recipient (family members) in accordance with the method of accounting followed by them and as per the provisions of the law. Ground No. 4 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose." 3. Ld. Special Counsel did not controvert to such contention of Ld. AR that the issue is covered by the aforementioned decision. 4. In view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, we pass similar order and this ground is considered to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el.(SB)], Sedco Fores Drilling Co. Ltd. [264 ITR 320],NGC Network Asia LLC [313 ITR 187] ,Summit Bhatacharya [ 300 ITR (AI) 347 (Bom)(SB)], Vijal Gopal Jindal [ITA No. 4333/Del/2009] & Emillo Ruiz Berdejo [320 ITR 190 (Bom)].DR relied upon the cases of Devine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 3.1.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that in the case of Devine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C were applicable to the notified person also. Therefore, upholding the order of the FAA to that extent, we hold that provisions of section 234 of the Act are applicable. As far as calculation part is concerned. we find merits in the submission made....