TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated 25.03.2025 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2023-24. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of notional interest @ 9% on loans and advances given to the subsidiary company, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no income by way of interest had accrued to the assessee, despite the existence of a binding agreement providing for charging of interest, thereby ignoring the principle of accrual of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the notional interest should not be added to its income. In response to which, the assessee submitted that similar addition of interest paid to Gateway Multichannel Retail (India) Limited made in AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22,the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 to AY 2018-19, AY 2020- 21 and AY 2021-22 holding that the addition was unwarranted. Thus, the impugned addition is already a covered matter. Further, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal ordered the matter in favour of the assessee for AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. Thus, it was clear that the matter being in favour of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise the then Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition by following the decision of his predecessor in appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13. No contrary fact or law to take other view is brought to our notice to take other view, nor any variations in facts brought to our notice. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by revenue." 3.1 Also, the relevant extract of ITAT order for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 where the tribunal had adjudicated the matter in favour of the assessee was also reproduced as under - "7. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in-dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We note that the then Ld. CIT(A) has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same issue, the Revenue had filed appeal u/s 260A of the Act before the hon'ble Bombay High Court which was stated to be pending. The ld.AR on the other hand, relied on the appellate order. 6. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case and perused the records as also the contents of the assessment and appellate orders which reveal that the assessee had investment and loans and advances in relation to Gateway Multichannel Retail (India) Limited (Gateway), a subsidiary company, aggregating to Rs. 23.31 cr. as on 31.03.2021. The Board of Directors of Gateway in January 2009, decided to discontinue its catalogue retailing operations as the business did not meet the planned performance levels to support the investments re....