TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 2006-07 respectively. 2. Since these three appeals pertaining to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Revenue appeal: ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y. 2004-05] 3. Ground No. 1 pertains to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,93,08,907/- made by the Assessing Officer by allocating the said amount on account of interest income to be capitalized to the joint venture accounts. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the CIT(A) while the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT(A) has ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held that interest of Rs. 2,93,08,907/- is expended for the business activity and rightly claimed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The A.O. is directed to allow the claim of the interest." 6. We have heard the rival submissions made and have carefully perused the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is engaged in various activities like real estate, commercial land, spices etc for which he has procured funds from various investors at an average cost of 14.1%. The assessee has worked out the interest on proportionate basis at Rs 2,93,08,907/- on the funds borrowed for this particular business activity. We find that the same is directly related to the business activity of the assessee and is allowable unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act. We are of the considered view that in the instant factual matrix, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the finance cost was incurred to earn interest and the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee summarily without rebutting the details filed during the assessment proceedings. We, therefore, do not find any flaw in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2. Is dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3 pertains to the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 4,01,44,183/- on account of common management expenses. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 28,59,43,123/- as management and other expenses which included direct and indirect expenses. However, the Assessing Officer while allocating managemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture made by the appellant clearly falls in the purview of section 37(1) of the Act as incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business". 13. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the indirect management expenditure was made by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of indirect management expenditure of Rs. 4,01,44,183/-. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 3 is dismissed. 15. Ground No. 4 relates to the action of the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer disallowed the payment of Rs. 2,52,36,513/- for non-production of A.I. Estates for examination. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the said party could not be produced due to the short notice of 7 days. We find that the company is having office in Delhi whereas the services were rendered in Tamil Nadu. We further find that the ld. CIT(A) observed that the services were provided by the company and payment for the services rendered was made as per the agreement and the bills were raised by the concerned company. Therefore, there is no scope for doubt or suspicion regarding the services rendered. We also find that the Assessing Officer has not brought any positive material or evidence to indicate that there is no servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of interest of Rs. 1,49,35,377/-. 26. Now the revenue is aggrieved and has come in appeal before us. 27. After considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the amount of Rs. 2,01,25,285/- is credited as business receipt whereas the payment of interest on deposits received by the company has not been considered by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not given any specific finding for the said disallowance. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of interest and decline to interfere with his order. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 28. Ground No. 4 is general. 29....