TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the learned CIT(Appeals) is erroneous & contrary to facts & law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,39,12,048/- made on account of interest expense capitalized in real estate under development. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,24,94,319/- made on account of all expenditure debited to profit and loss account. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing. ITA No. 1464/Del/2016 "1. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous & contrary to facts & law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the assessee. As regards Ground no. 2, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,24,94,319/- made on account of all expenditure debited profit and loss account. As the Assessing Officer was wrongly mentioned that the benefits was not commenced. The Ld. DR relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court order in case of Add.CIT vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. (2012) 21 taxmann.com 97 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs. CIT (2011) 196 Taxman 404 (Delhi). 6. The Ld. AR relied upon the assessment order as well as CIT(A) order. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1, the CIT(A) has deleted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A Builders case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On considering the facts of the case and the arguments forwarded by the appellant, it is observed that there is no dispute as far as the allowability of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act is concerned. The facts of the case of Malayalam Plantation Ltd. on which the AO has relied, are entirely different. The appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builder Limited, it was held by the Hon'ble Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". In order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been written in page no. 4 and 5 of his order. The AO had disallowed the explanation of the appellant on the ground that the appellant company is not engaged in the business of raising loans at concessional rate and extending them at higher rates. The appellant has failed to use the money of the purpose for which it has been raised, and by capitalized interest. The assessee has increased the cost of inventory was the comments of the AO. These views of the AO appear to be reverted and distorted. The appellant company and its parent company are into different businesses like appellant company doing real estate work and parent company is IndiaBulls Real Estate Ltd., a real estate company. Both the interest of the company are to ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll relevant as the factual aspect in the present case is totally different. There is no need to interfere with the observations of the CIT(A). Ground no. 1 of the revenue's appeal is dismissed. 8. As regards ground no. 2 the assessee has commenced its business in 2006 itself and was filing return since Assessment Year 2007-08. The present assessment year is the fourth year of filing return of income. The CIT(A) held as under: "GROUND NO. 3:- The assessee is real estate developer/builder. The company was incorporated on 25.07.2006. The appellant had filed its income tax return for AY 2007-08 showing total loss of Rs. 32,619/-. The appellant had filed income tax return for AY 2008-09 showing loss of Rs. 64,074/- and also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution or from group concerns or give loans and advance to sister concern for executing various activities of the objects. Therefore the AO's assumption that interest claimed by the appellant should be disallowed, as the company has not started its activities, is not correct. The AO had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. and had said in its order in page no. 6 that interest earned by the appellant company of Rs. 2,10,97,405/- earned during free commencement period is held as income from other sources by applying the above case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court case is different where FDR interest received from fixed depos....