Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI
ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M:
The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai, dated 24.10.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), dated 13.12.2017. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T(A) was justified in deleting the addition of estimated deemed rent amounting to Rs.35,17,223/- on unsold flats of assessee's project.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and In law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of 2 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd. interest expenditure amounting to Rs.2,22,40,835/- on account of diversion made by the assessee of borrowed funds, towards interest free advances.
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.2,22,40,835/- without verifying the contention of the assessee that its own funds were more than borrowed funds.
4. The appellant craves, leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the grounds of the appeal, if need be.
5. The appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A)-52t Mumbai, may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.
Briefly stated, the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 25.11.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.3,53,40,670/-. The return of income was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act.
3. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 13.12.2017 at an income of Rs.6,10,98,730/- after inter alia making the following additions/disallowances:
Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Addition of deemed Annual Lettable Value Rs.35,17,223/- (ALV) of the flats held by the assessee as stock-in-trade of its business of a builder and developer.
2. Disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for Rs.2,22,40,835/- deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order in appeal before the CIT(A). After necessary deliberations, the CIT(A) finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee vacated the aforementioned impugned additions/disallowances made by the A.O.
5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee that the issues involved in the present appeal were squarely covered by the 3 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd. orders passed by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the preceding years. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R had drawn our attention to the orders passed by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 in dated 31.10.2018, A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA Nos. 7288 & 7289/Mum/2017 and ITA No. 209 & 210/Mum/2018, dated 23.04.2019. Our attention was drawn by the ld. A.R to the relevant observations of the Tribunal qua the issues involved in the present appeal before us.
6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the assessment order. 7. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. On a perusal of the records, we find that the revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(A) on two grounds, viz. (i). deletion of the addition of the deemed Annual Lettable Value (ALV) of Rs.35,17,223/- that was made by the A.O qua the unsold flats that were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade of its business as that of a builder and a developer; and (ii) deletion of the disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of Rs.2,22,40,835/-. 8. As stated by the ld. A.R, and rightly so, the issue as to whether or not the annual lettable value of the unsold flats that were held by the assessee as stock- in-trade of its business as that of a builder and developer were liable to be assessed under the head „house property‟ is squarely covered by the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 6686/Mum/2016, dated 31.10.2018. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, we find that the Tribunal had observed that sub-section (5) of Sec. 23 of the Act which contemplates a relief to the real estate developers therein provides that if an 4 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd.
assessee is holding any house property as his stock-in-trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, then, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which the completion certificate is obtained from the competent authority. It was, thus, observed by the Tribunal that as sub-section (5) of Sec. 23 had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.04.2018, therefore, the assessing of the ALV of the unsold flat that were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade of its business for the year before them i.e A.Y. 2012-13 could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. The Tribunal while concluding as hereinabove had observed as under:
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant is in the business of real estate development. During the year under consideration, its project Western Edge, Ananta & 351 Icon got completed. The appellant has offered income in respect of sale of flats/units in the above projects and balance unsold flats/units in the above projects is shown as stockin-trade. The appellant is holding such unsold flats/units of Rs.1,85,95,17,274/- under the head „closing inventories‟. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) asked the assessee to explain as to why the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of such unsold flats/units cannot be taxed as income from house property as per the provisions of section 22 of the Act. In response to it, the appellant filed a reply stating that “it is holding unsold flats/units as stock-in-trade to earn business income and not rental income. The same cannot be taxed on the basis of ALV notionally because the company is an occupant and such an occupation is in the course of business as builder and developer. Also most of the flats/units are sold in near future or remains to be sold on account of non-approval etc.
The appellant also submitted evidence in the form of booking memos etc. in support of its claim that the same is sold in near future. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the appellant and relying on the decision in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del), worked out the ALV at Rs.2,21,53,896/- as the ALV of unsold flats/units and added sum of Rs.1,55,07,727/- under the head „Income from House Property‟ after giving deduction @ 30% u/s 24(a) of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) and observing that the facts in the case of the appellant are identical to the facts in the above case, confirmed the addition of Rs.1,55,07,727/- made by the AO.
Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files a Paper Book containing the judgement of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Neha Builders P. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 and the order of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Runwal Constructions v. ACIT (ITA Nos. 5408/Mum/2016 and 5409/Mum/2016 dated 22.02.2018), ITO v. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6037/Mum/2016 dated 27.06.2018), C R Developments P. Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA No. 4277/Mum/2012 dated 13.05.2015), Sarang Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.
5 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd.
ACIT (ITA No. 5620/Mum/2016 dated 26.06.2015). The Ld. counsel relies on the above decisions.
Per contra the Ld. DR relies on the decision in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) and supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. On the above issue, we come across one decision for the assessee and another decision for the revenue. The decision in Neha Builders Pvt.Ltd.(supra) is for the assessee, whereas the decision in Ansal Hsg. Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.,(supra) is for the Revenue. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192 (SC) has held that “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the tax payer must be adopted.” Thereby, we will follow the decision in Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 7.1 The following sub-section (5) has been inserted after sub-section (4) of section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018: “(5) Where the property consisting any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained from the competent authority, shall be taken to nil.” Thus, in order to give relief to Real Estate Developers, section 23 has been amended w.e.f. AY 2018-19 (FY 2017-18). By this amendment, it is provided that if the assessee is holding any house property as his stock-in-trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which a completion certificate is obtained from the competent authority. In view of the above amendment to section 23, we are not adverting to the case laws relied on by the Ld. Counsel and Ld. DR. In the instant case, the assessee is in the business of real estate development. The issue of taxability is with regard to unsold flats/units of Rs.1,85,95,17,274/- held by the appellant under the head „Closing Inventories‟. The AY is 2012-13. In view of the insertion of sub-section (5) in section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018 narrated hereinbefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allow the 1st & 2nd grounds of appeal.” As the facts and issue involved in the present appeal remains the same as were there before the Tribunal in its aforementioned order, which thereafter had been followed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the assessee‟s case for A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15 in and ITA 209,210/Mum/2018, dated 23.04.2019, therefore, we respectfully follow the 6 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd. same. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the addition of Rs.35,17,223/- that was made by the A.O towards the deemed ALV of the unsold flats that were held by the assessee as stock-in- trade of its business of a builder and developer, we uphold the same. The Ground of appeal No.1 is dismissed.
9. We shall now take up the claim of the revenue that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure of Rs.2,22,40,835//- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. As is discernible from the records, the A.O being of the view that the assesee had diverted its interest bearing loans and advances for the purpose of giving interest free loans and advances of Rs.13,08,28,440/-, had thus, disallowed the corresponding interest i.e @ 17% per annum and made a resultant addition/disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.2,22,40,835/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the issue qua disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) was a recurring issue that was decided by his predecessor in the assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15. Referring to the view taken by his predecessor while disposing off the assessee‟s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, it was observed by the CIT(A) that his predecessor taking cognizance of availability of sufficient own funds and interest free advances with the assessee had vacated the disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 2,23,93,835/-. Accordingly, the CIT(A) finding that the facts and the issue involved in the case before him qua the aforesaid issue of disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) remained the same as were there in its case for the preceding years i.e A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15, thus, followed the view therein taken by his predecessor and vacated the disallowance of the assesses claim for deduction of interest expenditure of Rs. 2,22,40,835/-.
7 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd.
10. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) to the extent he had vacated the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of Rs.2,22,40,835/- has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the interest free advance given by the assessee company pertained to the period prior to 31.03.2013. In other words, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that no part of the interest free advances were given by the assessee company subsequent to A.Y 2013-14. Adverting to the facts involved in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure was disallowed by the A.O while framing the assessment for the said year u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that thereafter the CIT(A) had after considering the availability of sufficient self-owned and interest free funds with the assessee company vacated the disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that on further appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal considering the claim of the assessee that the entire interest free loans and advances of Rs.13,32,13,440/- were given in the preceding years out of the sufficient interest free funds that were available with it, had thus, in all fairness restored the matter to the file of the A.O, with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after verifying the factum of availability of sufficient self-owned and interest free funds with the assessee in light of the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O giving effect to the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal had vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act, dated 05.07.2019 observed that the interest free loans and advances given by the assessee were old loans that were advanced way back in the preceding years i.e A.Y. 2005-06, A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O in the course of the set-aside proceedings had after verifying the claim of the assessee that the interest free loans in 8 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd.
question were advanced out of sufficient reserves and surplus, share capital and non-interest bearing funds as were available with it had vacated the disallowance of interest of Rs.2,26,46,285/- that was made by his predecessor vide his original assessment order passé u/s 143(3), dated 12.03.2015. At this stage, we may herein observe that the ld. A.R had in all fairness pointed out that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeals in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 in and A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No. 7289/Mum/2017, dated 23.04.2019 had restored the issue qua the disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure for both the said respective years to the file of the A.O, with a direction to re-adjudicate the same as per the extant law and as per the directions which were earlier given by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 6686/Mum/2016, dated 31.10.2018. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O had thereafter vide his respective orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254, dated 20.04.2021 for A.Y. 2013- 14 and A.Y. 2014-15 disallowed the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act as was done in the original assessment order that was passed by his predecessor u/s 143(3) of the Act for the said years. It was, however, submitted by the ld. A.R that though the directions given by the Tribunal in ITA No. 6686/Mum/2016, dated 31.08.2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 were considered in the course of the set-aside proceedings by the A.O, however, the view therein taken by the Hon‟ble High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (as was referred by the Tribunal in its order for A.Y 2012-13 in ITA no. 6686/Mum/2016) that in case of availability of mixed funds the presumption of utilization of self owned/interest free amounts available with the assessee for giving interest free advances was lost sight of by the A.O while framing the set-aside assessment for both of the aforementioned years. Be that as it may, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O in the course of the set-aside assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 had categorically observed that the assessee had advanced the interest free loans in earlier years. In the backdrop 9 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd. of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that it was an admitted factual position which had not been rebutted by the revenue that the interest free loans in question were advanced by the assessee prior to assessment year 2012-13 i.e during the period relevant to the years ended 31.03.2005, 31.03.2007, 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010. In order to fortify the aforesaid factual position the ld. A.R had placed before us a chart, which reads as under:
“Chart showing details of movement in the loan accounts of parties period 31.03.2013 to 31.03.2015 Sr. No. Name of the Party Closing Balance as Additions during Reduction Closing on 31st March, 2012 period 01.04.2012 during period Balance as on 31st to 31.03.2015 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015 March, 2015 1. Manish 65,00,000 65,00,000 Enterprises 2. Mayur Enterprises 60,00,000 60,00,000 3. Sohil Kusumgar 2,85,000 2,85,000 4. Supreline 10,00,00,000 10,00,00,000 Construction Pvt. Ld.
5. Ashok T. Chheda 5,00,000 5,00,000 6. B.G. Doshi 11,00,000 11,00,000 7. Bhavesh 85,000 85,000 M.Chheda 8. Bindu H. Mehta 5,00,000 5,00,000 9. Chemfert 2,00,000 2,00,000 Granulations Ltd.
Chemfert Traders 1,35,100 1,35,100 Bom. Pvt.Ltd.
Devesh Agarwal 5,00,000 5,00,000 12. Dinesh Mehta 9,00,000 9,00,000 - 13. Giviben Chheda 5,63,000 5,63,000 14. Hukamatraj Mehta 6,00,000 6,00,000 15. Kamlesh Daftary 5,94,740 5,94,740 16. Kishor M. Purohit 2,05,000 2,05,000 17. Madhubala M. 95,000 95,000 Chheda 18. Mahdhu Mehta 15,00,000 15,00,000 19. Mahendra L. 85,000 85,000 Chheda 20. Mahendrqa L. 85,000 85,000 Chheda HUF 21. Mehul P. Sanghvi 15,00,000 15,00,000 22. Poineer 6,00,000 6,00,000 Electronics 23. Pranav Agarwal 5,00,000 5,00,000 24. Rajkumar 1,00,000 1,00,000 Panmani 25. Shreedham 3,50,000 3,50,000 Corporation 26. Shreedham 2,50,000 2,50,000 Securities 27. S.N. Maheshwari 1,24,000 1,24,000 10 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd.
HUF 28. Srishti Securities 4,00,000 4,00,000 Pvt.Ltd.
Subarban Builders 30,05,000 30,05,000 Pvt. Ltd.
Sushant Agarwal 5,00,000 5,00,000 31. Taraben L. 5,65,600 5,65,600 Chheda 32. Uday M. Sampat 21,01,000 21,01,000 33. Vinod Housing 13,00,000 13,00,000 Pvt.Ltd. Total 13,17,28,440 9,00,000 13,08,28,440 As observed by us hereinabove, the fact that the interest free loans had been advanced by the assessee in the previous assessment years i.e relevant to the years ended 31.03.2005, 31.03.2007, 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010, and the assessee‟s claim qua availability of sufficient owned funds and interest free funds for giving such interest free loans had been accepted by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act, dated 05.07.2019 for A.Y 2012-13, wherein it was observed by him as under:
“The return of income was e-filed on 28.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.8,34,40,265/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 17.08.2013 declaring total income at Rs.8,71,49,682/-. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 08.08.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee company. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.03.2015 at an assessed income of Rs.12,53,03,690/- after making addition/disallowance on account annual letable value of Rs.1,55,07,727/- and disallowance of interest of Rs.2,26,46,285/- 2. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A)-52 vide dated 15.07.2016 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee has preferred appeal before Hon‟ble ITAT. The Hon‟ble ITAT vide its order no. dated 31.10.2018 deleted the addition with regards to annual lettable value and set aside the issue of disallowance of interest wherein the Tribunal had set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter to the file of the A.O to make a de novo order as per ratio laid down in Madhav Prasad Jatia 118 ITR 200 (SC) and Reliance utilities & power Ltd. 313 ITR 340, after giving an opportunity of being head to the assessee.
Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response thereto Shri Nilesh Mehta, CA attended and made submissions.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to furnish justification for the allowability of proportionate interest. In response to the same assessee submitted details vide letter dated 29.03.2019 wherein note on non- disallowance of proportionate interest has been submitted. The submissions of the assessee have been considered and found the same to be acceptable. In this regard, it is to mention here that assessee‟s own funds and non-interest bearing loans are sum of Rs.185.84 crores against which non-interest bearing advances given are of Rs.159.22 11 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd.
crores. Out of sum of Rs.159.22 crores, assessee had made advances of Rs.42.67 crores towards land/advances to creditors and assessee being in the business of real estate development, and being stock in trade the said advances are in the nature of trade advances and being incurred for the business purposes. For the remaining interest free loan of Rs.116.55 crores given, assessee had given interest fee loan of Rs.89.92 crores to wholly owned subsidiaries, Rs.10.98 crores to associate concerns and balance of Rs.15.65 croes was given as interest free friendly loans. Further, it is to mention here that all these loans are old loans assessee has accordingly furnished the paper book submitted before the Hon‟ble ITAT through letter on 03.08.2018 supported by balance sheet of previous assessment years i.e 31.03.2005, 31.03.2007, 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010. In this regard, assessee has explained that reserves & surplus, share capital and non- interest bearing funds were more when compared to non-interest bearing fund i.e friendly loans. The case of assessee was that interest was not disallowed in the abomvetinoed assessment years and hence interest cannot be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii). Hence, the case of assessee was covered as per the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble apex court in the case of CIT Vs. reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 34. Furthermore, the proceedings in respect of earlier years care completed u/s 245D(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Hon‟ble Income Tax Settlement Commission wherein there was no addition/disallowance with regards to interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Looking into the scenario, the case of the assessee was covered by the abovementioned two Apex Court pronouncements, the case of the assessee was squarely covered and hence, there will be no disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid acceptance of the assessee‟s claim by the A.O while giving effect to the direction of the Tribunal, vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254, dated 05.07.2019 for A.Y 2012-13 that the assesse had sufficient interest free funds available with it to source the interest free advances of Rs.13,32,13,440/- that were given by it in the previous assessment years i.e the year ended 31.03.2005, 31.03.2007, 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010 and no interest free advances had thereafter been given by the assessee during the period 31.03.2013 to 31.03.2015, therefore, we find no justification to take a different view and sustain any part of the disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations are of the considered view that as the CIT(A) had rightly observed that no part of the assessee‟s claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of interest expenditure of Rs.2,22,40,835/- could have been disallowed, therefore, finding no infirmity in the view taken by him uphold his order qua the issue under consideration. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed.
12 Dy. CIT-4(1) Vs. M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd.
11. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 4 & 5 being general are dismissed as not pressed.
Resultantly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.