AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 2075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relating to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 against respective orders passed under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the 'Act'). 2. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we take up the appeal of assessee in assessment year 2010-11, where the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 5.2 have been raised. However, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has not pressed the said grounds of appeal, hence the same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. The assessee in ITA No. 1170/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2011-12 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- The following grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncerns totaling to Rs. 73,15,83,143 and hence, the interest attributable to such advance was not allowable as a business deduction in this year. 2.3] The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the said interest free amount were advance by the assessee to various parties including sister concerns for the purposes of business and hence, the learned CIT (A) was not justified in disallowing the interest. 2.4] The learned CIT (A) the further erred in not appreciating that the assessee had sufficient interest free funds available with it which were more than the amount of interest free advances made by the assessee and accordingly, there was no reason to make any disallowance of interest. 5. Further, in assessee's appeal for asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter was set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer to ascertain the financial position of assessee at the time of giving advances, that, whether it had interest free funds available at the relevant time. The relevant findings of the Tribunal i.e. vide para 9.2, read as under:- "9.2 We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the findings of Assessing Officer in disallowing the interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the amounts advances to various parties. The Assessing Officer has observed that the amounts were advanced to the sister concerns for non-business purpose and there is no benefit to the assessee from such advances either directly or indire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he financial position of the assessee at the time of giving advances. In case own interest free funds of the assessee are sufficient to cover the advances at the time of making such advances, no disallowance should be made in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Power Utility Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, ground No. 3 raised in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purpose." 10. The issue arising in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in earlier years and even the advances were made in earlier years and following the same parity of reasoning, we remit this issue also back to the file of Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne the availability of interest free funds and to work out the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, if any, in line with directions of the Tribunal in earlier years. The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and determine the disallowance, if any, accordingly. The ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Now, coming to the appeals filed by the Revenue, wherein in both the appeals, the Revenue has raised similar grounds of appeal i.e. against the order of CIT (A) in allowing the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act, on the ground that the project of assessee was not notified by the Government for claiming the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the findings of the Tribunal in M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and reproduced the same at pages 19 to 21 of the order and observed as under:- ".... In the present case the project of the assessee was initially approved under IPS 2002 on 15-02-2005. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) in assessment year 2006-07 which was allowed to the assessee. The assessee could not complete the project within the time frame specified in IPS 2002 i.e. 31-03-2006. The assessee applied for notification of the project under IPS 2008. The project was notified by CBDT on 09-07-2010. After notification of the project under IPS 2008, the eligibility of deduction has to be seen with respect to the new scheme. Thus, in....