VIJAY KUMAR VYAS,J. - (1.) In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial questions of law:- Appeal No.281/2017 "(1) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.55,79,771/- made on account of interest paid on loans which were not required by the assessee company since it had made huge investments in firm in which directors of the firm were partners and the investment so made generated low return in comparison to interest paid on loans (2) Whether the tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of interest made @ 10.29% specifically when the profit earned on the investments made by the company was 1.71% whereas the interest paid on unsecured and bank loans was 12%? (3) Whether the tribunal was legally justified in deciding the appeal of the revenue on the basis of findings of A.Y.2010-11 specifically when against the order of the tribunal the department could not prefer an appeal u/s 260A as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT" Appeal No.283/2017 "(1) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.50,31,326/- made on account of interest paid on loans which were not required by the assessee company since it had made huge investments in firm in which directors of the firm were partners and the investment so made generated low return in comparison to interest paid on loans (2) Whether the tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of interest made @ 10.29% specifically when the profit earned on the investments made by the company was 1.71% whereas the interest paid on unsecured and bank loans was 12% (3) Whether the tribunal was legally justified in deciding the appeal of the revenue on the basis of findings of A.Y. 2010-11 specifically when against that order of the tribunal the department could not prefer an appeal u/s 260A as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT";