ASSTCIT (OSD) 8(3), MUMBAI V. VICNA DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6171/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Source of fund; Proportionate interest; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAI N, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 6171/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (O.S.D)- 8(3), ROOM NO.217,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 6 TH FLOOR, ACKRUTI TRADE CENTRE, ROAD NO.7, MAROL MIDC, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 093. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCV 8042J ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G M DOSS / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAVAN VED / DATE OF HEARING : 28/04/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/05/2016 $% / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 18, DATED 25 .07.2014 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-18/DCIT-8(3)/IT-330/2013-14 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW. 2 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. I. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST MADE U/S 36(1)(IIIA) OF THE ACT TO RS. 12,80,166/- AS AGAINST RS. 1,62,70,200/- DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREBY GRANTING A RELIEF OF RS. 1,49,90,034/ - ?' II. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS TO GIVE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES TO M/S. ACKRUTI CITY LTD.?' III. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES THE DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN ITS OWN FUNDS AND THE INTEREST -FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO ITS SISTER CONCERN, M/S. ACKRUTI CITY LTD. OF RS. 13,55,85,000 /-?' IV.'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST IGNORING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. V.I. BABY & CO. (254 ITR 248) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT WAS HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE WITH LIQUIDITY CANNOT CLAIM THAT IT CAN GIVE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCE S TO THE PARTNERS & OTHERS AND THEN BORROW FUNDS FROM THE BANK ON INTEREST FOR BUS INESS PURPOSE?' V. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED.' 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN DECLARING LOSS OF RS.4,23,47,132/- WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY ON 30.09. 2011. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.03.2012 DECLAR ING LOSS OF RS.49,78,812/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED TO REMEDY CERTAIN DEFECTS THAT HAD CREPT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. TH EREFORE, THE REVISED RETURN OF 3 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. INCOME WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CA SE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. AFTER SERVING STATUTORY NOTICES AND SEEKING THE ASS ESSEES REPLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED B Y AO. DISALLOWING PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.1,62,70,200/- @12% AT TRIBUTABLE TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OF RS.13,55,85,000/- ADVANCED TO THE ACKR UTI CITY LTD WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. GROUND NOS. 1TO 4 SINCE ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN TER-CONNECTED AND INTER- RELATED THEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SAME THROUGH THE PRESENT COMMON ORDER. 3. THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF REVENUE SUBMIT TED THAT AS PER RECORDS, SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF RS.12,51,24,3 90/- AND THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,78,52,00,000/-. IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT AS FAR AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS IS CONSIDERED, MAJOR PO RTION APPEARS AS INVESTMENT OF RS.2,78,52,00,000/- AND ADVANCE OF RS.13,55,85,000 /- TO ACKRUTI CITY LTD. IT WAS 4 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT CONTEND THAT THE ENTIRE ADVANCE OF RS.13,55,85,000/- TO ACKRUTI CITY LTD HAS COME OUT OF SHARE CAPITAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT THE MAJOR SOURCE OF FUNDS IS THE INTEREST BEARING UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2,78,49,92,560/-. THE LD. DR F URTHER ARGUED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS SAID TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THERE IS NO BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS Y EAR. THE ONLY RECEIPT DECLARED IS INTEREST ON DEBENTURES OF RS. 6,16,51,506/- AND ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST OF RS.9,45,91,715/- TO THE P/L ACC OUNT IN RESPECT OF BORROWINGS, WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, IT HAS ADVANCED INTEREST F REE LOAN TO ACKRUTI CITY LTD. THIS BEING SO, INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% ON THE AGGREG ATE LOAN OF RS.13,55,85,000/- ADVANCED TO THE ACKRUTI CITY LTD. WAS RIGHTLY DISAL LOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WHEREAS, ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AR APPEARING ON BE HALF OF ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY ASSESSEES OWN CASE DECIDED BY HONBLE ITAT (MUM ) IN ITA NO. 5145/MUM/2014 FOR AY 2010-11WHEREIN HONBLE JUDICIA L MEMBER WAS THE AUTHOR OF SAID ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY LD. AR T HAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY HONBLE ITAT WHICH HAD ARISEN FRO M THE SAME IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 25.07.14. 5 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. BEFORE WE COME ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE IT IS NECE SSARY TO ANALYZE AND EVALUATE THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 5145/MUM/2014 FOR AY 2010-11 PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE OPERATIVE PORTION IS AS UNDER : WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AN D WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMEN TS AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, IF ANY, IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE ACTUALLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E AND SHOULD NOT BE IN REFERENCE TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE REGISTRATION AND STAMP DUTY CHARGES FOR REGISTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE FURTHER FOUND THAT SINCE THE ADVANCE WAS GRANTED ON 31.12.2009 AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THEREFORE, THE PERI OD COVERED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ONLY W.E.F 31.12.09 I.E. FOR 3 MONTHS ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE DISA LLOWANCE OF INTEREST ONLY ON THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF ADVANCE AND O NLY FOR THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS W.E.F. 31.12.09 TO 31.03.10. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. WE HAVE ALSO ANALYZED THE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A) W HEREIN THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HER EIN BELOW: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT , ORDER OF THE A.O. AND FACTS OF THE CASE CAREFULLY, ~IT IS NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCE OF RS. 13,55,85,000/- TO M/S. ACKRUTI CITY LTD . ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. HAS GIVEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE T O THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INTEREST ON INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE AR OF THE~ APPELLANT HAS SUBM ITTED ITS REPLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE SHAR E-CAPITAL OF RS.12,51,24,390/- AND THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 2, 78,49,92,560/- WERE IN THE COMMON POOL OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADVANCE OF RS. 13,.55,85,000/- TO MIS. ACKRUTI CITY. LTD. WHICH CA NNOT BE CLAIMED AS ADVANCE MADE OUT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,51,24,3901-. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE AO. HAS COMPUTED THE INTER EST @ 12% ON THE 6 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. INTEREST-FREE LOAN OF RS. 13,55,85,000/- AND ADDED BACK A SUM OF RS. 1,62,70,200/-. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HA SUBMI TTED THAT THE INTEREST- FREE LOAN TO GROUP COMPANY WAS MADE OUT OF THE SHAR E CAPITAL OF RS. 12,51,24,390/- BECAUSE THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 2 ,78,49,92,560/- WERE INVESTED IN DEBENTURES OF RS.2,78,52,00,000/-. THUS , IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE THE INTEREST-FREE LOAN WAS GIVEN OUT OF I TS .OWN FUNDS, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST ON INTEREST-FREE LOAN IS NOT CALLED FOR. TO STRENGTHEN ITS VIEW, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON DECISIONS OF HON'BLE COURTS (SUPRA). FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS OF TH E CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 12,51,24,39 0/- AND UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 2,78,49,92,560/- WHICH IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT . SECONDLY, IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 2,78,52,00,000/- IN THE PURCHASE OF DEBENTURES AND MADE ADVANCE TO MIS. ACKRUTI CITY LTD. OF RS. 13,55,85,000/-.THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME FROM DEBENTURES AT RS. 6,16,51,506/- AND DEBITED THE INTEREST AMOUN T OF RS. 9,45,91,715/- TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF BORROWINGS. NOW, QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE INTEREST-FREE ADV ANCE OF RS. 13,55,85,000/- OUT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OR OUT OF U NSECURED LOANS. T ANSWER THIS QUESTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT OUT OF THE UNSECURE D LOANS OF RS 2,78,49,92,560/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 2,78,52,00,000/- I.E. RS. 2,07,440/- (RS. 2,78,52,00,000 - 2,78,49,9 2,560) THIS IS MORE THAN THE UNSECURED LOAN. SECONDLY, OUT OF THE SHARE CAPI TAL OF RS. 12,51,24,3901- THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE TO MIS. ACKRUTI CITY LTD. OF RS. 13,55,85,000/-WHICH MEANS THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADV ANCES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,06,68,050/- OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS (1,04,6 0,610 + 2,07,440). FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS, IT I S CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADVANCES TO MIS. ACKRUTI CITY LTD. OF RS. 13,55,85,000/- WHICH WAS NOT ENTIRELY, FROM THE SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 12, 51,24,3901- BUT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,04,60,610/- WAS OUT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS OR OVERDRAFT FROM THE BANK. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,07,440 1- WAS ALSO EXCESS OF THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 2,78,4992,560/- BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED DEBENTURES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,78,52,00, 000/-. FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THESE FIGURES, IT IS WORKED OUT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT ITS OWN FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 04,60,610/- AND RS.2,07,440/- TOTA LING TO RS. 1,06,68,050/-, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST @12% ON RS. 1,06,68,0501- W ORKS OUT TO RS. 12,80,1661- . IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW, THE VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS ARE HELD AS UNDER:- 7 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (A) HEMRAJ CANJI VS. ITO - WHETHER IF ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST-BEARING BORROWED FUNDS AND I NVESTMENTS IN SHARES, WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR, SAID INTEREST SHOULD BE ADDED TO COST OF ACQUISITION - HELD, YES - WHETHER SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTERES: AS WELL AS OTHER EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON THE GROUND THAT IN EARLIER YEARS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE , COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED - HELD, YES. (B) ACIT VS. EICHER LTD. - WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICE R CAN ESTIMATE A PART OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE AS EXPENDITURE INC URRED TO , REDUCE NON- TAXABLE INCOME ON ASSUMPTION THAT A PART OF EXPENDI TURE MUST HAVE NECESSARILY BEEN INCURRED TO PRODUCE NON TAXABLE IN COME AND DISALLOW SAID PART OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A -HELD, . NO, ' (C) CLT VS. BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD: - THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS., AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN AL/ THE THREE CA SES BEFORE TRIBUNAL. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO BEFORE US WERE THAT IT WAS NOT THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS TO INVEST THE S HARES OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES; THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE 'HAD' BORROWED M ONEY AND HAD PAID INTEREST THEREON, THE AMOUNT BORROWED HAD BEEN DIVE RTED INTEREST-FREE TO THE SUBSIDIARY'' COMPANIES WHICH NO PRUDENT BUSINES SMAN WOULD DO SO; THAT THE AESSESSEE COMPANY WRONGLY DEBITED TO ITS P &L ACCOUNT, THE OF INTERE.ST TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS NOT FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE AS SESSEE. (D) CLT VS. SRIDEV ENTERPRISES - SEC. 36(1)(III) OF THE I. T. ACT -:- INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITA/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1978-79 DURING R ELEVANT ACCOUNT YEAR ACCOUNTING YEAR ASSESSEE FIRM ADVANCED A SUM TO A F IRM N THERE WAS CERTAIN OPENING BALANCE OF ADVANCES MADE TO N DURIN G EARLIER YEARS - PARTNERS OF AESSESEEE AND N WERE INTERRELATED AND H AD., . BUSINESS CONNECTIONS - NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM N -'- HO WEVER, ASSESSEE BORROWED FUNDS FROM THIRD PARTIES AND CLAIMED DEDUC TION OF INTEREST PAID ON SUCH BORROWINGS -WHETHER, SINCE NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN EARLIER YEARS, OPENING DEBIT BALANCE OF N COULD NOT BE CONS IDERED DURING YEAR IN QUESTION AND ENQUIRY HAD TO BE LIMITED TO INCREASE IN CURRENT YEAR ONLY- HELD YES. IN TOTALITY OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO ITS SISTER CONCERN OUT OF UNSECURED LOA NS AND OVERDRAFT FROM THE BANK ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS RESTRIC TED TO RS. 12,80,166/- AND THE BALANCE ADDITION IS DELETED, HENCE GROUND OF AP PEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AFTER CO-JOINT READING OF BOTH AFORE MENTIONED ORDE RS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE SAI D ISSUE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS RIGHTLY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESEE HAS A SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.12,51,24,390/- AND UNSEC URED LOAN OF RS.2,78,49,92,560/- AND THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS CLE AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ADVANCE OF RS.13,55,85,000/- TO ACKRUTI CITY LTD W HICH WAS NOT ENTIRELY FROM THE SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.12,51,24,390/- BUT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,04,60,610/- WAS OUT OF UNSECURED LOANS OR OVERDRAFT FROM THE BANK A ND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,07,440/- WAS ALSO EXCESS OF THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2,78,49 92,560/-. ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED DEBENTURES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,78,52,00,0 00/-. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER ANALYZING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND FIGURES HAS RIGHTLY WORKED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITS OWN FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,06,68,050/- (RS. 1,04,60,610/-+RS.2,07,440/-). THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED TH E ADDITIONS BY HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST @12% ON 1,06,68,050/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO R S.12,80,166/-. THE SAID FINDINGS RECORDED BY CIT(A) IS BASED ON VARIOUS JUD GMENTS RENDERED BY HONBLE COURTS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS PASSED A REASONABLE AND JUDICIOUS ORDER. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO DE VIATE FROM OR INTERFERE WITH THE 9 ITA NO. 6171/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT VS. M/S. VINCA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UP HOLD HIS ORDER. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAND REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO.5 & 6 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED : 25.05.2016 PS. ASHWINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 , 12# , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ %, ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI