ITO 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIRMID DEVELOPER LTD, NEW DELHI

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 20.09.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-8, Mumbai dated 30.06.2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 52,73,015/- on loans which were obtained for the assessee‟s business of Real Estate Development and hence ought to have been capitalized to the work-in- progress of the project in hand instead of allowing the same as Revenue in nature.

During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee vide paras 5.1.3 (relating to disallowance of interest) and 5.2.5 (relating to disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii)). Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO.

On the other hand, Ld AR for the assessee heavily relied on the order of the CIT (A) and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before the Tribunal, I find, there are couple of issues involved in this appeal ie (i) disallowance of interest on loan and (ii) disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962. In this regard, the said paras 5.1.3 and 5.2.5 of the CIT (A)‟s order are relevant. Considering the significance and for the sake of completeness of this order, the said paras are extracted as under:- “5.1.3. The Ld DRP has followed its own directions on this issue in AY 2010-11. The facts and circumstances of the instant case being similar to those examined by DRP for AY 2009-10 & 2010-11, I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the Ld DRP in appellant‟s case in earlier years. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction of this expenditure of Rs. 52,73,015/- u/s 57(iii) and allow set off and carry forward of the resultant loss as per law. This grounds of appeal is allowed. 5.2.5. I find that the Assessing Officer has not given due weightage to categorical decisions of jurisdictional courts on this issue, nor has brought anything on record to differentiate facts of this case from similar facts considered by Hon‟ble ITAT, Mumbai in above decisions. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of higher judicial authorities cited above, the disallowance of Rs. 2,86,648/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) made by the AO is deleted. This grounds of appeal is allowed.”