ASST CIT 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. REWAS PORTS LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1803/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 November 2017AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. Therefore, the AO was directed to decide the issue on similar lines.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed interest expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer allowed only a part of the claimed interest, leading to an appeal by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the allowability of the full interest expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Hearing: 21.9.2017Pronounced: 17.11.2017

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.738/Mum/2015
I.T.A. No.1803/Mum/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

2 and 738/M/2015 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: These cross-appeals are directed against the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-14 for the assessment year 2011-12. I.T.A. No.738/Mum/2015 2. The issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of ld.CIT(A) allowing only part of interest expenditure claimed under section 57(iii) to the tune of Rs.19,57,752/- as against the claim made by the assessee of Rs.32,78,768/-.

3. At the outset, the ld.AR submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in this ground stands covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. I.T.A. No.758/Mum/2012 (AY-2008- 09) dated 12.4.2017 and therefore prayed that by applying the same analogy, the issue be decided in favour of the assessee.

4. The ld. DR fairly agreed with the submissions of the ld.AR.

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the material placed before us and the orders of authorities below including the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. We find merit in the contentions of the ld.AR that the facts of the instant case before us are materially same as in the assessment years 2008-09 wherein the Bench has 3 I.T.A. No. 1803/2015 and 738/M/2015 directed the AO to decide the issue on the similar lines as has been decided for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, in order to maintain consistency with the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years, we direct the AO to decide the issue for the present assessment year also on the same lines. This ground of assessee is allowed. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →