| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:12)ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 452 & 660/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 1993-94 Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle – 4(1), 32, Madhuli Vs Mumbai Dr. Annie Beasant Road Worli Mumbai - 400018 [PAN: AAACG4937C]

अपीलाथ(cid:22)/ (Appellant) (cid:23)(cid:24) यथ(cid:22)/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/R Revenue by : Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

I.T.A. No. 452 & 660/Mum/2023, are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)

– 52, Mumbai, dated 09/01/2023 pertaining to AY 1993-94.

2. The issues raised in the captioned appeals are interlinked. Therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. We first take up I.T.A. No. 452/Mum/2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in rejecting books of accounts and holding that the same do not stand admitted.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming theaddition of Rs. 15,82,185/- on account of gross dividend and Rs. 25,31,015/- on account of gross interest, thus aggregating to Rs. 41,13,200/-.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,16,640/- out of the aggregate addition of Rs. 4,45,170/- made by the Ld. A.O. on account of unexplained investment in shares.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 55,220/- on account of alleged profit on sale of shares on estimated basis.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,19,229/- on account of alleged interest income without considering and appreciating the submissions of the appellant.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in disallowing the various expenses claimed by the appellant in connection with the various income offered and assessed by the Ld. A.O.

a. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of interest on shares/debenture call money payable by the appellant of Rs. 16,16,148/-

b. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed trading loss on sale of shares of

1,79,28,290/-.

c. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed other expenses to the tune of Rs.

1,01,589/-.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not granting deduction on account of the interest expense claimed by the appellant for Rs.

10,44,95,801/-

8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not considering the deduction on account of the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 8,56,500/- without appreciating the fact that the said claim was allowed to the appellant while assessing income of the appellant u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated

04.03.2003.

9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in enhancing the income of the appellant without complying with the provisions of s. 251 of the Act. The enhancement of the following income is therefore incorrect, unjustified and untenable in law.

a. Interest on term deposit of Rs. 5,52,935/-

b. Income from rights renunciation of Rs. 4,08,625/

c. Interest on share debenture application money of Rs. 3,27,856/-

d. Income from long term capital gain of Rs. 5,35,03,912, e. Income from short term capital gain of Rs. 97,81,190/-

f. Dividend and interest income on estimated basis determined at Rs.

1,48,82,992/-

10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in disallowing the expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,84,943/- out of the aggregate expense of Rs. 8,56,500/ - which were allowed by the Ld. A.O. and were not disputed in appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A).

11. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of