2009 (3) TMI 1050 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of notional interest.
2. Ad hoc addition on account of non-inclusion of damaged stock in valuation of closing stock.
3. Addition on account of presentation of gift articles.
4. Addition on account of prior period adjustments.

Summary:

1. Addition on account of notional interest:
The common ground raised in these cross appeals is in respect of addition on account of notional interest. The AO noticed that the assessee had given interest-free loans to subsidiary companies and disallowed interest claim of Rs. 2,62,74,000/- by applying 12% interest. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance related to Pentasia Investment(I) Ltd and Asian Paints Industrial Coatings Ltd but confirmed the addition for Technical Instruments Manufacturing Ltd. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with identical directions as given in earlier orders, including the disallowance related to Pentasia Investment (I) Ltd.

2. Ad hoc addition on account of non-inclusion of damaged stock in valuation of closing stock:
The AO noticed that the assessee valued unserviceable, damaged, and inert stock at Nil and estimated the realizable value of the damaged stock at Rs. 50.00 lakhs. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The ITAT agreed with the AO's findings and confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities on this issue.

3. Addition on account of presentation of gift articles:
The assessee claimed Rs. 9,39,208/- for gift articles presented. The AO disallowed the claim due to lack of details, and the CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 50%. The ITAT, considering the absence of details and past disallowances, restricted the disallowance to 10% of the claimed amount.

4. Addition on account of prior period adjustments:
The assessee claimed Rs. 98.36 lacs on account of prior period adjustments during assessment proceedings, which the AO disallowed. The CIT(A) held that such claims must be made in the return of income and rejected the claim. The ITAT found that appellate authorities, including CIT(A) and ITAT, have the power to admit such claims. The matter was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit in accordance with law.

Conclusion:
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.