Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi
[Citation -2016-LL-1116-87]
| Citation | 2016-LL-1116-87 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. |
| Respondent Name | ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi |
| Court | ITAT-Delhi |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 16/11/2016 |
| Assessment Year | 2009-10 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | disallowance of interest • proportionate interest • transfer of property • interest expenditure • interest free loan • business purpose • operating lease • lease agreement • sale deed |
| Bot Summary: | Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company made interest free loan amounting to Rs.4 crore to Shri Vikram Bakshi. On being called upon to explain as to why the disallowance of proportionate interest be not made, the assessee submitted that it was running one of its restaurants under operating lease from Sector 18, Noida, UP. The assessee initiated purchase of building on leasehold basis from M/s Vikram Bakshi Co. Pvt. Ltd. The consideration was agreed at Rs.4.40 crore and an advance of Rs.4 crore was given. Due to the delay on the part of the Noida Authority in approving the transfer in the name of the 2 ITA No.6271/Del/2013 assessee which was required as per the original lease agreement with the authority, the execution of sale deed was pending. The AO did not accept the assessee s contention by noticing that it had not filed any documentary evidence from where it could be ascertained that the advance was given for the purpose of business. AR relied on an application for transfer of property dated 21.9.2005 made in favour of the assessee, a copy of which is available at page 197 to 202 of the paper book. We find from the assessees paper book that the documents starting from page 99 up to page 206 were not before the AO or CIT(A). Since these documents are of immense relevance in deciding the controversy, which were admittedly not before the authorities below, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. We order accordingly and direct him to decide this issue afresh as per law, after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. |