2024 (1) TMI 798

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 08.11.2016 and 10.11.2016 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Both the parties mutually consented that the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 5102/Del/2019 may be taken as the lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for other appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 5104/Del/2019 also in view of identical facts, identical grounds except with variance in figures. 3. The first ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore us had already been addressed in this decision by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue in this regard is dismissed. 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld. AO observed that the assessee had debited finance cost of Rs 92,28,18,213/- in its profit and loss account. The ld. AO observed that the assessee had given ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 12 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) found that total advance which remain unadjusted worked out to Rs 10,59,07,288/- and disallowed interest @ 12% on the same amounting to Rs 1,27,08,875/-. Remaining disallowance of interest was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that against the disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is not in appeal before us. 8. We find that the ld. CIT(A) on going through the complete details of loans and advances given by the assessee had come to the conscious conclusion that only a sum of Rs 10,59,07,288/- had been advanced for non-business purposes. Hence it could be reasonably inferred that impliedly the ld. CIT(A) had accepted to the fact that the remaining advances were indeed giv....