MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS LTD., MUMBAI V. I.T.O. WD 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2273/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0083 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 142(1); 14A; 37(1); 37; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM I.T.A. NO S . 2273 /M/ 20 12 , 7254 /M/201 2 , 6779 /M/201 3 & 6779/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09, 20 09 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS LTD. 501, HERITAGE PLAZA, J.P. ROAD, OPP. INDIAN OIL COLONY, ANDHERI(W) MUMBAI PIN: 400053 VS. ITO WD 8(2)(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG. MUMBAI PIN: 400020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAECM 6524 C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING : 12 .0 6 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .08 .2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEA LS AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 17 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09,2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 . ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION BEING THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME AND THE MATTERS OF CONTROVERSY IS ALSO THE SIMILAR IN NATURE WHICH CAN CONVENIENTLY BE ADJUDICATED BY SINGLE ORDER . ITA NO.2273 /M/201 2 : - ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NISHANT THAKKAR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI PRASHANT J. THAKKAR MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPE AL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01 .201 2 PASSED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 17 MUMBAI, [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 08 - 0 9 . 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 . GROUND NO. I: DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS. 23,67500 UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 17 ['THE CIT(APPEALS)'). MUMBAI, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RE 23,67,500 BEING THE BUSINESS EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT (THE ACT'). 1.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAS INCURRED BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS.23,67,500 (INCLUDING LEGA L AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS . 961,738/ - WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR ITS BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, SUCH EXPENSES OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. 1.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION IN THIS MATTER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS23,67,500. 2 GROUND NO. 2: DENIAL OF SET - OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS INCURRED AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EARNED DURING THE SOME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2.1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIEW OF NOT ALLOWING SET - OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EARNED DURING THE SAME YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.2 AS A CONSEQUENCE TO GROUND NO .1! THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT WHERE IT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS.23.67,500 (INCLUDING LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS . 961,738) UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SET - OFF THE UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS (UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION) AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME, EARNED DURING THE SAME YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS OFFERED TO TAX A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DUE RELIEF. MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 3 3. GROUND NO. 3: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT 3.1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND DETERMINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.38,36,775/ - AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FOR RS.631,579 WHICH IS CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM TAX. 3.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AS IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.631,579 AND NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS WARRANTED. 3.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED ON APPLICATION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT YOUR APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND OMIT, DELETE, WITHDRAW O R SUBSTITUTE THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING AS THEY MAY BE ADVISED TO DO SO. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.16,94,900/ - . THE TOTAL INCOME COMPRISED OF INCOME OF RS.40,62,396/ - UNDER THE HEAD (INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES) AND A LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.23,67,500/ - UNDER THE HEA D OF PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION . A DIVIDEND OF RS.6,31,579/ - WAS ALSO CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 19(34) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BUSINESS LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,24,139/ - SUFFERED IN PRECEDING TWO YEARS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD IN T HE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY , THEREFORE, NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS A HOLDING COMPANY OF ITS GROUP SUBSIDIARIES. THE GROUP WAS POPULARLY KNOWN AS MANGAL KESHAV GROUP, MOSTLY DEALING IN SECURITIES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO ANY ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEAR WHICH COULD BE TERMED AS MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 4 BUSINESS. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT , THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO CREDIT ENTRIES NAMELY INTEREST ON FDS OF RS.40,62,396/ - AND DIVIDEND OF RS .6,31,579/ - . THE SAID RECEIPT WAS T ERMED AS INCOME OF OTHER SOURCES . T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAD NO CREDIT ENTRY AT ALL. THE EXPENSES WERE DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE O F RS.38,36,775/ - . OUT OF THIS, T HE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED THE INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURES TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,69,275/ - AND BALANCE OF RS.23,67,500/ - WERE SHOWN AS LOSS UNDER THE HEAD OF PROFITS AND GAIN OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THIS LOSS WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.40,62,396/ - BEING INTEREST EARNED ON BANK FDS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE BALANCE INCOME OF RS.16,94,900/ - WAS OFFERED TO TAX. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING THE BUSINESS EFFECTIVELY THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.23.67.500/ - WA S DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE SHOWE D THE EXEMPT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,31,579/ - BUT DID NOT SHOW THE EXPENSES TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.S. RULE 8D OF THE ACT WAS APPLIED IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. THE EXPENSES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE TOTAL EXPEN SES TO THE TUNE OF RS.38,36 ,775/ - . THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 40,62,400/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. ISSUE NO.1 & 2 : - MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 5 5 . THESE ISSUES ARE INTERCONNECTED , T HEREFORE , ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. UN DER THESE ISSUE S , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 23,67,500/ - U/S 37 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE COMPANY WAS IN EXISTENCE AND THE NAME OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT STRUCK OFF BY THE REGISTRAR COMPANIES AND THE COMPANY HAS TO FULFIL ST ATUTORY OBLIGATIONS, T HEREFORE, THE EXPENSES ARE LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE LAW SETTLED IN ( 1993) 201 ITR 498 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT TITLE AS CIT(A) KARANPURA COLLIERIES LTD . & (1992) 62 TAXMAN.COM 285 CALCUTTA , CIT VS. GANGA PROPERTIES LTD. ON THE OT HER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS, T HEREFORE, THE EXPENSES WERE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENU E. WE HAVE HEARD THE AR GUMENT AND ADVANCED BY THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAY NOT CARRY ON BUSINESS BUT IS IN EXISTENCE . T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DERIVING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE NAME OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT STRUCK OFF BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. THE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN DISSOLVED . S INCE COMPANY IS IN OPERATION, THEREFORE, THE COMPANY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS AS COMPANY AND TO DISCHARGE CERTAIN LEG AL OBLIG ATION AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN THE EXPENDITURE TO THE P&L A CCOUNT. THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS LIABLE TO BE MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 6 ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE LAW SETTLED I N ( 1993) 201 ITR 498 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT TITLE AS CIT(A) KARANPURA COLLIERIES LTD . & (1992) 62 TAXMAN.COM 285 CALCUTTA, CIT VS. GANGA PROPERTIES LTD. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS WRONG AND AGAINST LAW AND FACTS AND IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAIN ABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR DINGLY, THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. ISSUE NO.3 : - 6 . UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.38,36,775/ - INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,31,579/ - . THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THIS AMOUNT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES THEREFORE, THE SAID INVESTMENT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED WHILE ASSESSING THE EXP ENSES TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME , HENCE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS WRONG AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTION . IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INVESTED IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. THE APPELLANT IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING DIVIDEND INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,35 ,579/ - AND THE EXPENSES TO INCUR THE EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 38,36,775/ - MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 7 WHI CH IS MORE THAN THE DIVIDEND INCOME . A NYHOW THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED TO ASSESS THE EXPENSES TO EARN THE DIVIDEND INCOME IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D.IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT OF LAW IN ( 2014 ) 46 TAXMAN.COM 18 ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF GHARWARE WALL ROPES LTD. VS. ACIT 5(1), 2009, 183 TAXMAN 159 BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. 8 VS. SRISHTI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND ( 2013) 35 TAXMAN.COM 210 (DELHI) HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE EXPENSES INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME BY EXCLUDING THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED L AW . A CCORDINGLY, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. ITA NO.7254 /M/201 2 : - 7 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA . NO. 2273 /M/201 2 . HOWEVER THE FIGURE IS DIFFERENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - | 1. GROUND NO 1: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961('THE ACT') 1.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX APPEALS) - 17 OF THE CL1(A)'), MUMBAI ON THE CIS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND DETERMINING (HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS3240176 AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 30,40,178/ - WHICH IS CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM TAX. MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 8 1.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AS IT HA S NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 30,8 7,694 AND NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 144 OF TILE ACT IS WARRANTED, AND THUS RUE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES 1 962 (THE RULES) ALSO CANNOT HE INVOKED. 1.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AD.) BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED ON APPLICATION OF UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 2. GROUND NO. 2: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1, DISALLOWANCE OF CUSTODIAN FEES NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE 01 RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 2.1 THE CIT(A), ON THE TACT, AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CUSTODIAN FEES OF RS. 2,83,708/ - ON THE PREMISE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE DIRECTLY RELATING TO INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. 2.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAS PAID THE CUSTODIAN TEES INCURRED BY IT IN CONNECTION TH THE SHARES HER THE APPELLANT) WHICH ARE HELD BY THE APPELLANT'S SHAREHOLDERS IN DEMATERIALIZER4 FORM. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITS THAT SUCH EXPENSE HAS NO DIRECT NEXUS WITH EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME SINCE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SHARES WERE IN DEMATERIALIZED FORM OR NOT, DIVIDEND WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE APPELLANT, 2.3 THE APPEL LANT PRAYS FOR DUE RELIEF 3. GROUND NO. 3: WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 144 OF ME ACT BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND EARNED. 3.1 THE CFIXA), ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT TO HAVE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A. AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND EARNED OF ITS 30,87,694. 3.2 THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DUE RELIEF. 4 GROUND NO. 4: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. 1,2 , 3, A SUM OF RS. 32,40,1115 BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE ACT 4.1 THE CIT(A), ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 32.40178 ON THE PREMISE THAT NONE OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS. 4.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAS INCURRED BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS 32,40,178 WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR ITS BUSINESS AND THEREFORE SUCH EXPENSES OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT 4.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AU, BE DI RECTED TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION IN THIS MATTER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3240,178. 5. GROUND NO. 5: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. 1234, DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENSE, OF RS. 550191 IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS. MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 9 5,1 THE CIT(A) , ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 660,191, INCURRED IN RESPECT OF ITS REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE AT DUBAI AND SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT 5.2 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AG, BE DIRECTED TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION IN THIS MATTER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6.60.191. 6. GROUND NO. 6 ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.8,245/ - 6.1 THE CIT(A), ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AD DITION OF THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.8,245(BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TDS CERTIFICATE AND THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT TO TAX), SINCE THE DIFFERENCE RELATES TO THE REVERSAL OF INTEREST AS A RESULT OF A PRE - MATURITY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT. 6.2 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION IN THIS MATTER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,245/ - 7. GROUND NO. 7: DENIAL OF SET - OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS INCURRED AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EARNED DURING THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEA \ R 7.1 THE CIT(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AO VIEW OF NOT ALLOWING SET - OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EARNED DURING THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. 7.2 AS A CONSEQUENCE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL , THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SET OFF THE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.33.47,415/ - AS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.2,51.920/ - AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE BALANCE TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. 7.3 THE APPELLANT T PRAYS FOR D UE RELIEF. ISSUE NO. 1 TO 5: - 8. REGARDING THE SAID ISSUE S RAISED IN THIS APPEAL , T HE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED WHILE DECIDING THESE ISSUES IN ITA NO.2273/M/2012. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY ALLOWED ON ABOV E STATED TERMS. ISSUE NO.6 9. UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.82,45/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INTEREST INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2 , 51 , 920/ - ON FDS. THE MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 10 ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE TDS CERTIFICATES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE INTEREST TO AGGREGATED TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,60,165/ - . THE DIFFERENCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,245/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO MATERIAL OF ANY KIND WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US. THE PLEA OF THE ASS ESSEES THAT THE INCOME WAS OFFERED IN THE EARLIER YEAR BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. FINDING NOTHING IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ISSUE NO. 7 : - 10. THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT , THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.6779 /M/201 3 : - 11 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA . NO. 2273 /M/201 2 HOWEVER, THE FIGURE IS DIFFERENT. REGARDING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED WHILE DECIDING THESE ISSUES IN ITA NO.2273/M/2012 & 7254/MUM/2012 , T HEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY ALLOWED ON ABOVE STATED TERMS. MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 11 ITA NO.5135 /M/201 4 : - 12 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA . NO. 2273 /M/201 2 HOWEVER, THE FIGURE IS DIFFERENT. REGARDING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED WHILE DECIDING THESE ISSUES IN ITA NO.2273/M/2012 & 7254/MUM/2012, T HEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY ALLOWED ON ABOVE STRATEGIC TERMS. 13 . IN THE RESULT , ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 .08 . 2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( B. R. BASKARAN ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 31 .08 . 2017 V.P. SINGH MANGAL KESHAV HOLDINGS 12 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI