9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee's appeal is against the taxation of interest of Rs. 5,61,68,345 received from head office. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed exemption in respect of interest income of Rs. 5,61,68,345 earned from its head office in the revised return. The Assessing Officer did not allow any exemption and accordingly taxed this amount. The learned CITA) upheld the assessment order on this issue. 3. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record we find that the assessee is a non-resident carrying on banking business in India. During the course of its business it placed certain funds with its head office and earned the said amount of interest which was claimed as exempt. The Speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad office or other overseas branches. The assessee cannot claim deduction in respect of interest paid to its head office and overseas branches. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow exemption in respect of interest income and also not to grant any deduction in respect of interest expenditure. 4. The other contention raised by the learned Departmental Representative for making any disallowance u/s 14A in respect of interest income does not merit acceptance. We have perused the assessment order. It is observed that the Assessing Officer has proceeded with the presumption that the interest income is not exempt. He has not made any disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to such exempt income presumably u/s 14A of the Act. Neither i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of deduction u/s 44C by the assessee in the revised return which was made at Rs. 26,00,621. The learned CIT(A) concurred with the submission advanced on behalf of the assessee and found that the A.O. had not considered the revised return wherein the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 44C at Rs. 26,00,621 as against the deduction u/s 44C in the original return at Rs. 19,24,206. The learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer "to consider the deduction u/s 44C on the basis of revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the I.T. Act subject to verification of the correctness of revised return filed within time. Appellant's appeal on this ground is partly allowed". 6. Now the grievance of the assessee is that the direction given by the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t effective ground of the assesee's appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance u/s 43B of Rs. 38,561 paid during the financial year in respect of employer's contribution to provident fund. The Assessing Officer made disallowance for the said sum on the ground that it was not paid before the due date under the EPF Act. The learned CIT(A) sustained the disallowance accordingly. We have observed from the details filed by the assessee that the said amount of Rs. 38,561 was paid before the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 read along with the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. AIMIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k SAOG [2009] 313 ITR 128 has held that the deduction of bad debt is allowable on a simple write off and it is not for the assessee to prove that the debt had become bad. In view of the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we find that the view taken by the learned CIT(A) on this issue is without exception. This ground is not allowed. 11. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. Assessment Year 2001-2002 12. First ground of the assessee's appeal is against the taxability of interest income of Rs. 3,85,14,641 received from head office. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of this ground are mutatis mutandis si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allow deduction of Rs. 32.64 lakh u/s 37(1) of the Act. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of this ground are mutatis mutandis similar to those for assessment year 2000-2001 concerning the deduction of head office expenses u/s 44C of the Act. Following the view taken hereinabove we uphold the impugned order on this issue and dismiss this ground of appeal. 17. Last ground is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,47,430 in view of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee paid transaction charges on NOSTRO account with banks outside India. In the absence of assessee having deducted any tax at source on such payments, the A.O. made disallowance u/s 40(a)(i). The learned CITA) deleted the addition. 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
