Jamshed J. Appoo v. ACIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. JSW Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2142 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Otters Club v. DIT & Ors. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0689 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Asstt. CIT & ANR. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1040 (Bom-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersITA No. 6594/Mum/2018 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3471 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR, V.P. & AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. Jamshed J. Appoo v. ACIT I.T.A. No. 6594/Mum/2018 24 August, 2020 Assessee by : Haresh P. Shah, (AR) Revenue by : Padma Ram Mirdha, (DR) ORDER *Amarjit Singh, JM* The assessee had filed the present appeal against the Order, dated 24-8-2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-08, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals) ] relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-- 1. Disallowance of interest Rs. 6,36,555 (i) The learned Commissioner (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in confirming the interest disallowance of Rs. 6,36,555 disregarding the fact that the fact that the loan was used for the purpose of horse-trading and horse racing business. (ii) On the facts and circumstances, your appellant states that the alleged expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from horse trading and horse racing business and therefore, the same ought to have been allowed. (iii) On the facts and circumstances your appellant prays that the alleged claim on account of various expenses may be allowed. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No. 6594/Mum/2018
2020 TaxPub(DT) 3471 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

PRAMOD KUMAR, V.P. & AMARJIT SINGH, J.M.

Jamshed J. Appoo v. ACIT

I.T.A. No. 6594/Mum/2018

24 August, 2020

Assessee by : Haresh P. Shah, (AR)

Revenue by : Padma Ram Mirdha, (DR)

ORDER

Amarjit Singh, JM

The assessee had filed the present appeal against the Order, dated 24-8-2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-08, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals) ] relevant to the assessment year 2013-14.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :--

1. Disallowance of interest Rs. 6,36,555

(i) The learned Commissioner (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in confirming the interest disallowance of Rs. 6,36,555 disregarding the fact that the fact that the loan was used for the purpose of horse-trading and horse racing business.

(ii) On the facts and circumstances, your appellant states that the alleged expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from horse trading and horse racing business and therefore, the same ought to have been allowed.

(iii) On the facts and circumstances your appellant prays that the alleged claim on account of various expenses may be allowed. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.