M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE
In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed
ITA 1649/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.
For Appellant: Shri K.K.Chythanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)
…come was filed on 29/09/2011 and claimed the interest component which is not disputed. The learned AR supported his argument relying on the following judicial decisions: i. CIT vs. R.P.Goenka and J.P.Goenka (233 ITR 123)(Cal), ii. CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (254 ITR 103) (Punjab & Haryana), iii. Aryan Arcade Ltd. vs. CIT (250 Taxman 138)(Guj), iv. Sankeshwar Printers (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (218 Taxman 360)(Karnataka), v. CIT vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. (177 Taxman 434)(Del). 9. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee has been claiming interest in the earlier assessment year and it was accepted in the scr…
