TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeals preferred by the assessee against the assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act']. 2. It is seen that some grounds in these two appeals were earlier decided by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT vide order dated 05.05.2021 but, subsequently, the assessee had filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of some mistakes apparent from the records in the said two appeals. The Miscellaneous Applications(MA) of the assessee were allowed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in order dated 27.10.2021 in M.A. Nos. 19 & 20/Chd/2021 wherein it was noted that the Coordinate Bench had not decided ground Nos. 2 and 3 in the appeal for assessment years 2012-13 and ground No. 2 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. Directions be given to delete the said disallowance as the appellant has sufficient own funds in the shape of capital and reserves. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that ground No. 3 in appeal for assessment year 2012-13 and ground No. 2 for assessment year 2013-14 were identical. 4.1. Regarding ground No. 2 in assessment year 2012-13, it was submitted that this ground challenged computation of disallowance of Rs. 1,44,21,842 u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of interest paid on Working Capital Loan and Term Loan for purchase of investment in spite of assessee having sufficient funds of its own being available and no fresh investments having been made during the year. It was submitted that the records would show that in fact the inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench in the case of Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1341/Chd/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2017 for assessment year 2012-13. 5. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that both the issues have been subject matter of dispute in earlier years also. The Ld. AR has referred to the order of the ITAT in the appeal of a group company i.e. Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13 (supra) and it is seen that these issues figured in the said appeal as well. The relevant extract from the said order is being reproduced herein under; "2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extension of existing business or profession (whether capitalized in the books of account or not); for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction." The judgment of various Courts in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Ludhiana C.A. No. 514 of 2008 dt. 05/11/2015, Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Jalandhar (2016) 381 ITR 107 (P & H) held that no disallowance of interest is called for where the assessee has got sufficient own funds. The Assessing Officer is directed to go through the fund position namely capital and interest free advances, reserves and surplus to determine whethe....