sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

Income tax Officer-5(2)(2) R.No.567, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Vs. M/s. Janus Investment Pvt. Ltd. Madgaonkar House, 17 Mathew Road, Opera House Mumbai-400 004.
June, 19th 2015
                            , ""                               
                       ,       ,   
          Before S/Sh. I P Bansal,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
                                / MA No.01/Mum/2015
(Arising out of   / ITA No.5057/Mum/2010)  /Assessment Year-2007-08
         Income tax Officer-5(2)(2)      M/s. Janus Investment Pvt. Ltd.
         R.No.567, 5th Floor, Aayakar    Madgaonkar House, 17 Mathew
         Bhavan, M.K. Road            Vs Road, Opera House
         Mumbai-400 020.                 Mumbai-400 004.
                                         PAN: AAACJ 1252 E
               ( /Applicant)              (  / Respondent)
                     /Assessee by                       :Shri R.C. Jain
                      / Revenue by                       :Shri N. Padmanaban
                      / Date of Hearing                                : 01 -05-2015
                       / Date of Pronouncement                         : 17 -06-2015
                                             / Order
                      PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Vide its application,dated 01.01.2015,the Assessing Officer(AO)has stated that there were
mistakes in the order passed by the Tribunal on 09.04.2014,that same have to rectified by
passing order u/s.254(2) of the Act.
Brief Facts:
Assessee-company,engaged in the business of leasing of property and development of
properties, filed its return of income on 29/10/2007,declaring total income of Rs. Nil and the AO
finalised the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act,1961 on 30.12.2009, determining the total
income at Rs.4,71,93,590/- by disallowing 1/5th of interest of Rs.63.86 lakhs on borrowed
capital (relating to the period upto the date of completion of construction of building) and
adding notional interest on deposit money and share application money.It filed an appeal before
the First Appellate Authority(FAA),who decided the issue in favour of the =.The appeal filed by
the AO was decided by the Tribunal and the matter was restored by it to the file of the FAA for
fresh adjudication.The Tribunal observed as under:
       " 3.2 Before us, DR supported the order of the AO. AR submitted that interest payment was
       allowed in earlier AY, that the assessee never treated the property in question as stock in trade.
       On a specific query by the bench as to whether the assessee had not claimed the interest
       expenditure under any other section, AR fairly conceded that he was not in a position to make
       such an averment.
       We find that in the statement of facts also assessee has not made a claim that it had not made
       claim about the interest expenditure under any other head. FAA has also not given any finding in
       this regard. As per the provisions of section 24 of the Act, interest payment can be allowed while
       computing the income under the head income from house property, if the assessee had not made
       a claim about the same under other sections of the Act. As the FAA has not verified this vital
       fact,so,in the interest of justice, we are remanding back the matter to this file for further
       verification. Ground no.2 is decided in favour of the A.O., in part."
                                                                            MA No.01/Mum/2015,AY.07-08

As per the AO the claim made by the assessee with regard to the interest payment was allowed
by the A.O. in the assessment year 2006-07 was not fully correct,that in the original assessment
for A.Y. 2006-07 completed u/s.143(3),on 30/12/2008,total loss was calculated at Rs.60,76,960/-
by allowing 1/5th of accumulated interest,that the income chargeable to tax had escaped
assessment for the AY 2006-07 for the reason that the assessee had claimed 1/5th of accumulated
interest of construction period of Rs.63,86, 544/-which was not in accordance with provisions
of section 24(b) of the Act,that matter was re-opened,that the re-assessment was completed
u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act,on 30/12/2011 determining the total income at Rs.3,09,584/-, by
disallowing 1/5th of accumulated interest,that the order of the Tribunal had to be amended

4.During the course of hearing before us,Departmental Representative(DR)could not point out
as to what was the mistake apparent in the record that had to be rectified.The Tribunal had
decided the issue on the basis of available material.If the AO had reopened the assessment and
made a disallowance and these facts could affect the outcome of the issue the AO should appear
before the FAA to file an explanation about the chronology of events.But,in any manner the
subsequent decision taken by the AO cannot be held to be a mistake apparent from the record.It
appears that the AO is not aware that he wants us to review our order,but it is not possible as per
the provisions of section 254(2)of the Act.As there is no mistake in the order passed by the
Tribunal,therefore,prayer made by the AO is rejected.

           As a result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the AO stands dismissed.
                 Order pronounced in the open court on      17 June,2015.
                           17  ,2015    

             Sd/-                                                          Sd/-
          (  /I P Bansal)                                          (    / RAJENDRA)
          / JUDICIAL MEMBER                            / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
/Mumbai, /Date: 17.06.2015
. ..Jv.Sr.PS.
                /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /                                         2. Respondent /   
3.The concerned CIT(A)/      , 4.The concerned CIT /    
5.DR A Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /               ,  ,.. .
6.Guard File/ 
                                            //True Copy//
                                                         / BY ORDER,
                                                 /  Dy./Asst. Registrar
                                                ,  /ITAT, Mumbai.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Company Overview

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions