TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 2075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation of Rs. 16,55,050/- (16,55,050+27328) claimed by the assessee in respect of the assets leased to Kumar City Club Pvt. Ltd. 1.1] The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee was not eligible to claim depreciation in respect of the capital assets in the form of "Club House including Swimming Pool" and Gymnasium leased out to Kumar City Club Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the assessee had not used the said assets for the purpose of its business and accordingly, the depreciation was not allowable. 1.2] The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had used the said assets for purpose of its business and therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val contentions and perused the record. The grounds of appeal No. 1 to 4 and 5 to 5.2 raised by the assessee are not pressed. Hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed. The remaining issues arising in the cross appeals before us are squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1190 & 1191/PN/2013 and 1271 & 1272/PN/2013 vide order dated 12.08.2016 had decided the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act vide para 9.2, wherein 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer to determine the availability of interest free funds and also to work out the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, if any, in line with directions of Tribunal in earlier year. The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 6 to 6.3 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, partly allowed as indicated above." 10. In the facts of the present case also, the Assessing Officer noted that total secured funds as on 31.03.2011 were Rs. 107.90 crores and the financial outgo was Rs. 16.84 crores. The assessee had made advances to group concerns at Rs. 73.15 crores. The assessee explained that it had made strategic investment in group companies by way of advances and share application money, was rejected and the interest attributable to the advances made to the group concerns was disallowed in the hands of assessee on the basis of average rate i.e. Rs. 2,36,615/-. The CIT (A) upheld the said addition since similar addition was made in earlier years. 11. We find that the issue arisin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he criteria of locating minimum number of 30 industrial units. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal of assessee vide para 6.6 at page 18 of the order noted 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 view of the facts of the case and the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal we find no merit in the contentions of the ld. DR that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) in assessment years under appeal." 12. Further, secon....