AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Rs. 10,87,419/- by the Ld. A.O. The addition needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,87,419/- based on factual position which is described erroneously. The addition needs deletion. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,87,419/- ignoring the details furnished before him. The addition needs deletion. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,87,419/- based on presumption and cermices. The addition needs deletion. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,87,419/- invoking provisions of section 14A though the said provision is not applicable. The addition needs dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 days in filing of the present appeal may kindly be condoned. 3.1. On going through the facts of the instant case, the medical condition of the assessee and the advanced age his mother, we are of the of the considered view that this is a fit case where the delay of 63 days may be condoned , in the interest of justice. In the case of Varely Textile Industry Vs. CIT 54 taxmann.com 33 (Guj.), the High Court held that it is settled legal proposition that a meritorious case should not be thrown out on the ground of limitation alone. Accordingly, in view of the facts narrated before us, we are hereby condoning the delay of 63 days in filing of the present appeal. 4. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... share of profits from various firms in which he is a Partner. The Assessing Officer observed that share of profit from the firms is exempt in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, there is no question of allowability of interest payment against such income which is exempt in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 10,87,419/- against income from other sources and such income from other source has been earned by way of interest on saving bank accounts (Rs. 3954/-) and interest on FD with banks (Rs. 25,228/-), and interest on income tax refund (Rs. 374/-) and therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the view that section 57(iii) of the Act provides that for claiming such de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, no interference is called for in the action of assessing officer. The disallowance, of interest expense at Rs. 10,87,419/- u/s. 57(iii) by the assessing officer for assessment year 2009-10 stands confirmed." 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A). Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the interest and remuneration earned by the assessee from various firms in which he is partner amounts to Rs. 10,18,626/- and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 10,87,419/- is erroneous since the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act which deals with expenditure incurred towards earning of income which is not liable to tax. However, in thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve not been incurred for earning of interest income, which is pre-requisite for allowability of interest expenditure u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there is no correlation between interest expenditure and earning of interest income. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that so far as the share of profit in the partnership is concerned, the same impugned exemption is in the hands of the assessee. Further, so far as the interest on capital from partnership is concerned, the same was liable to be paid to the assessee in terms of the partnership deed and no interest expenditure was required to be separately incurred to earn the same. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the ma....