CASCADE HOLDINGS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1455/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 November 2017AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its own precedent and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The issue of interest expenditure was directed to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of interest expenditure by the AO and the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision in its own case for a different assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee was allowable, considering the rejection of books of accounts and computation of book profits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “C” MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath
Hearing: 6.9.2017Pronounced: 15.11.2017

सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 6.9.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in all the appeals are identical and hence these appeals were clubbed together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2 I . T . A . N o . 1 4 5 5 - 1 4 5 6 - 1 4 5 7 M u m / 2 0 1 1 2. The issue raised in grounds no.1 to 3 in all the appeals are not pressed by the ld.AR and hence dismissed as not pressed. 3. The issue raised in ground no.4 in all the appeals is against the non- granting of relief amounting to Rs.86,14,970/- by CIT(A) as disallowed by the AO towards the interest expenditure as claimed by the appellant.

4.

At the outset, the ld.AR submitted that the issue raised in ground no.4 in all the appeals stands covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 in vide order dated 16.7.2014. Since the facts are identical in all the years, the precedent laid down by the Tribunal be followed in these years and appeals of the assessee be allowed accordingly.

5.

The ld. DR fairly agreed with the submissions of the ld.AR. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, and perused the material placed before us. We find that the identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 in favour of the assessee. However, for ready reference we reproduce below the operative part of the decision rendered in ITA No.191/Mum/2013 (para 5): 5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as material available on record, we note that identical issue has been considered and decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 as under :-

3 I . T . A . N o . 1 4 5 5 - 1 4 5 6 - 1 4 5 7 M u m / 2 0 1 1 “6. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (supra). Whether the interest liabilities of Rs.86,15,970/-constitutes ascertained one or not is also linked to the issue of rejection of books of accounts as the books of account is the basis for computation of book profits u/s 115JA of the Act. This is common issue qua the issue adjudicated in the case of the Hitesh S. Mehta (supra) and matter was set aside. Respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised in ground no.3 should be set aside to the files of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The decision if any should be taken only after considering the decision in the case of Hitesh. S Mehta, (supra). Accordingly, ground nos.4 & 6 are set aside. ” 5.1 Following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case we set aside this issue to the record of CIT(A) with the same direction as given in the assessment year 2007-08.”

7.

Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct him to pass fresh order according to judicial pronouncement as rendered by the Tribunal for assessment year 2008-09.

8.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical. Order is pronounced on 15th Nov.2017 Sd sd (D.T.GARASIA) (RAJESH KUMAR) Judicial Member Accountant Member म ुंबई Mumbai; ददन ुंक Dated :. 15th 11.2017 Sr.PS:SRL:

More judgments on Section 115JA

All 209 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →