INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S MINNOW TRADING CO. PVT LTD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1431/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 February 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the additions. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its earlier orders in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years, and the Revenue could not point out any distinguishing facts.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of accrued interest on investments in partnership firms. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 2,09,06,987/- in each of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

What were the issues?

Whether the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of accrued interest on investments in partnership firms by the CIT(A) was justified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh Raj, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru, Shri. Ganesh Raj, CA
Hearing: 30.01.2020Pronounced: 20.02.2020

Per A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member These two appeals are filed by the Revenue and the same are directed against two separate orders of learned CIT(A)-4, Bengaluru, dated 24.03.2017 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience

2.

In both years, the Revenue has raised several grounds of appeal but the only grievance of the Revenue in these two appeals is that learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO in respect of accrued and 1432/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 3 interest @ 18% on the investments made by the assessee in partnership firms towards capital contribution and the addition is of Rs.2,09,06,987/- in each of these two years.

1.

3. In the course of hearing, learned DR of the Revenue supported the Assessment Orders whereas learned AR of the assessee supported the orders of CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue involved in both these years is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 in and 952/Bang/2016 dated 02.06.2017. He submitted a copy of this Tribunal order and pointed out that in this Tribunal order, the Tribunal has followed earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No.901/Bang/2013 dated 18.03.2014 and reproduced the relevant para of that order of the Tribunal. He also submitted that there is no difference in facts in the present year.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO by following the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for several years including Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. No difference in facts could be pointed out by learned DR of the Revenue and hence, we find no reason to take a contrary view. Respectfully following earlier orders of the Tribunal, we decline to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) in the two years. and 1432/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 3 5. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →