DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30 , DELHI vs. AVANTHA REALTY LTD. , DELHI

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.:

1. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 15.02.2022 of Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority) in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 01/10157/2018-19 before it against the order dated 07.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, ACIT/ DCIT, CC-20,/ ACIT(3(2), Delhi.

2. The assessee company field its return of income claiming loss of Rs. 6,50,25,917/- under normal provisions at an income of Rs. 49,02,948/- and under MAT provisions u/s 115JB of the Act and the case was selected for complete scrutiny. Thereafter, the ld AO had made disallowance of the interest u/s 24(b) of the Act at Rs. 5,01,33,879/- and u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 at Rs. 3,57,61,254/- and recalculated the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,08,69,216/- under normal provisions of the Act at Rs. Page | 1 4,06,64,202/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee primarily following the orders of the previous Assessment Years in assessee’s own case for AYs 2010-11 to 2014-15 and the revenue has come in appeal raising following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest paid to Ballarpur Industries Ltd. of Rs.5,01,33,879/- u/s 24(b) of the IT, Act 1961. 2) The Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,57,61,254/- made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules , 1962. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in relying upon the Ld. ITAT, Delhi’s order dated 25.10.2021, in the assessee’s own case for AYs 2010-11 to 2014-15, without appreciating that the said decision of the Hon’ble ITAT has not been accepted by the Department on merits. 4) (a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.”