TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, the ground No.2 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the ld. AR at the time of hearing. The same is reckoned as the statement made from the Bar. Accordingly, the ground No.2 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 3. The ground No.3 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 4. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is with regard to challenging the disallowance of proportionate interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a domesti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. For this argument, the ld. AR stated that the assessments for A.Y.2011-12 and 2012-13 were not subsequently subjected to any revision proceedings by the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act or subjected to any re-opening proceedings by the ld. AO u/s.147 of the Act. In view of this fact, we hold that it could be safely concluded that the transactions of lending to M/s. Jogindra Exports Ltd., and M/s. Anchor Leasing Pvt. Ltd and interest derived thereon from them by the assessee company in the ordinary course of its business of financing, stood accepted as business income by the Revenue in the past. Hence, there is no need for the ld. AO to take a divergent stand when there is no change in facts of the case and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was stuck up and the project could not take off resulting in huge funds of the said borrower company choked up in their on-going construction project. In view of the said worst financial crisis, the borrower company (i.e. M/s. Jogindra Exports Ltd.,) chose not to pay any interest on the loan to the assessee company. In fact both the borrower company did not provide any payment of any interest in their books and claimed the same as deduction and the assessee company also did not provide any interest income receivable from the said borrower company in its books. The assessee had indeed filed copy of correspondences exchanged between borrower company and assessee company demanding for payment of interest, board resolution of assessee company w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the assessee for non-recovery of dues from M/s. Jogindra Exports Ltd., and for disallowance of interest paid on loans in the hands of the assessee company on a proportionate basis. We find that the assessee had duly explained this fact before the ld. CIT(A) by stating that list of Directors extracted by the ld. AO to ascertain the key executives of M/s. Hindustan Appliances Ltd., which is holding company of M/s. Jogindra Exports Ltd., is for F.Y.2015-16 which is much later to the year under appeal. It was submitted that Mr. Kanan H Shah was appointed as Additional Director on 26/03/2015; Mr.Mehul J Shah is merely Non-Executive Director since 16/06/1998 and does not have any role to play in day to day operations of M/s. Hindustan Applian....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when it was transferred to another firm. For the years during which the assessee exhibited films in the said theatre the interest paid on the loans obtained for constructing it were allowed by the revenue as a deduction under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that is to say, as being the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the assessee's business. For the years in question, however, the ITO declined that deduction on the ground that the business of exhibition of films in the said theatre was no longer in existence; therefore, the interest on borrowings attributable to this particular business could not be allowed as a deduction in computing the profits of the other b....