9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 257 - AT - Income TaxAccrual of interest - uncertainty - Addition of notional interest and brokerage - Held that - The addition on account on account of notional interest was not justified as the assessee had not earned any income as M/s DEIL had already expressed its inability to pay the interest - the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and under normal circumstances it had to provide for interest income receivable from M/s DEIL but since the assessee was aware of the fact that it will not receive any income as interest, thus, following conservative policy of not taking into account any income which is uncertain did not make any provision for interest income and CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the facts - assessee had about Rs.12.77 crores of share capital and reserve at the close of the AY 2002-03 whereas the loan to Unitech Ltd. is only to the extent of Rs.8.05 crores - CIT(A) has rightly appreciated about surplus funds available with the assessee and has rightly deleted the addition - Regarding the addition of brokerage there was no force in the argument of revenue and CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and allowed the relief Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.38.62 lakhs for interest on advances made to M/s DEIL. 2. Addition of Rs.28,96,500/- for notional interest on advances. 3. Addition of Rs.1,85,324/- for commission paid. 4. Cross objection against the upholding of an addition of Rs.5,16,393/-. Issue 1: Addition of Rs.38.62 lakhs for interest on advances made to M/s DEIL: The Assessing Officer added Rs.38.62 lakhs to the income of the assessee, considering the interest accrued on advances made to M/s DEIL. However, the Ld CIT(A) deleted this addition after analyzing the facts. The Ld CIT(A) observed that the appellant company had given advances to DEIL for purchasing property units, and due to a court order, DEIL could not allot the units. DEIL informed the appellant that they could not pay interest on the advances. The Ld CIT(A) considered various factors, including judicial pronouncements and the sequence of events, and concluded that there was no accrual of real income. Therefore, the addition of accrued interest was deleted. Issue 2: Addition of Rs.28,96,500/- for notional interest on advances: The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.28,96,500/- as notional interest on advances made by the assessee to M/s DEIL. However, the Ld CIT(A) overturned this addition after considering the financial position of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) noted that the share capital and reserve of the assessee were sufficient to cover the advances made, and since no interest was payable on this capital, the addition of notional interest was deemed unjustified and deleted. Issue 3: Addition of Rs.1,85,324/- for commission paid: The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,85,324/- as commission paid by the assessee, citing lack of justification. However, the Ld CIT(A) disagreed with this disallowance after examining the agreements and bills presented by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) found that the commission was paid by the appellant company, even though the bills were issued in the name of another entity. The Ld CIT(A) concluded that the nature of services rendered by the brokers was evident from the agreements and bills, leading to the deletion of this addition. Issue 4: Cross objection against the upholding of an addition of Rs.5,16,393/-: The assessee filed a cross objection against the upholding of an addition amounting to Rs.5,16,393/-. However, during the proceedings, the Ld AR representing the assessee decided not to press the cross objection. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI dismissed the revenue's appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the Ld CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the additions related to interest on advances and commission paid, based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal principles. The judgment showcases a detailed examination of the accounting treatment, financial positions, and contractual agreements involved in the case, leading to the final decision to dismiss both appeals.
|
