TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CA ORDER PER BENCH: Aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2013 & 13.06.2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, ("Ld. CIT(A)"), order dated 23.03.2015 passed by ld. CIT(A)-6, Delhi for assessment year 2010-11 and orders dated 31.07.2015 passed by ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 in the cases of Malibu Estate Pvt. Ltd. ("the assessee"), both the Revenue and the assessee preferred these cross appeals. 2. Since the grounds in the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are substantially similar, raising common questions of law and facts, all these appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application money and no interest was charged on such money whereas the assessee had shown the interest expenses to the tune of Rs. 4,82,14,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 3,01,97,000/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and therefore, the Assessing Officer thought it fit to add a sum of Rs. 4,27,74,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 2,79,97,000/- for the assessment year 2009-10 to the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by both the additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) by the impugned orders granted relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by applying POC method. Ld. CIT(A), however, upheld the addition of disallowance of inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Tribunal is upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in ITA No. 213 of 2015 by order dated 18.03.2015 and by accepting the same, subsequently, the department made no further additions. 9. So far as these facts are concerned, they remain un-challenged and un-impeached. Since there are no compelling reasons to deviate from this consistent view taken by the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be found fault with. On this premise, we find the grounds of Revenue's appeals as bereft of merits and consequently dismiss the same. 10. Now, coming to the grievance of the assessee that the addition based on the assumption that the investment made by the assessee in the subsidiari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....withdrew a part of the advances in the assessment year 2008-09 and at the end of the year, such investments stood at Rs. 28.20 crores. Be that as it may, it remains an established fact that for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, as against the interest free funds in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 104.18 crores and 118.68 coress respectively, the assessee made investments only to the tune of Rs. 37.25 crores and 75.77 crores respectively. It goes without saying that for these two assessment years, the own funds of the assessee are in far excess of the investments made. 12. Now, coming to the decisions cited by the assessee, in CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd., 331 ITR 502 (Del), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2010-11 is concerned, it remains an admitted fact that for assessment year, the assessee did not earn any exempt income and the ld. CIT(A) categorically recorded that a reading of profit & loss account and balance sheet clearly establishes that no dividend income was received and claimed as exemption in that assessment year. Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim (India) P. Ltd., (2014) TOL 1586 DEL IT) and deleted the same. Inasmuch as the ld. CIT(A) followed the binding precedent rendered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the same cannot be found fault with. Thus, these grounds of Revenue in appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, challenging the deletion of disallowance u/s. 14A of t....