TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The above captioned appeals and cross objections of the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Dehradun for A.Ys 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The Revenue has filed an appeal for A.Y 2008-09. 2. Since the appeals and cross objections were heard together and pertain to same assessee, these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the very outset, the ld. AR Shri Rakesh Gupta stated that under instructions, he is withdrawing the appeal for AY 2006-07 and the two cross objections filed by the assessee for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. On such concession, the appeal and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The only appeal t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the concession from the ld AR, the ground no 1 is allowed. 7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the deletion of disallowance u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 8. Briefs facts relating to this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 21,22,99,500/- to ICRI Research P Ltd, a party covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act, for the purpose of providing infrastructural facility/services for providing education for clinical research, as the assessee was not having any wherewithal for the said purpose. The AO disallowed 10% of service charges, amounting to Rs. 2,12,29,950/-, paid to the related party by holding that the payments made were excessive and unreasonable. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tifying the same. We are therefore of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. Ground No. 2 accordingly stands dismissed. 14. Facts relating to Ground No. 3 pertaining to disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various parties and had paid interest of Rs. 19,98,542/- @ 1.6% per month during the year under consideration. The AO also noted that the assessee, at the same time had advanced loans to persons covered u/s 13(3) @ 1% interest per month. The Assessing Officer finally disallowed a proportionate interest @ 12% per annum on amount of Rs. 1 crore holding that the interest bearing funds hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he conclusion that the transaction did not amount to diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue. 20. Ground No. 4 relates to the deletion of addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Facts in brief are that the assessee credited an amount of Rs. 36 lakhs in its account as loan from six parties. On being asked to substantiate the genuineness of the said loan, the assessee submitted confirmation letters from the persons who lent the money. The Assessing Officer not being satisfied held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the parties who have given the loan and considered the transaction as unexplained and added the ....