9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered or not pressed. After considering the rival contentions and examining the record and orders in earlier years, the issues are decided as under: ITA No.5935/Mum/2006 - Assessee's Appeal: 4. Ground No.1 in assessee's appeal is with reference to treating certain incomes as not pertaining to/derived from 100% EOU's for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has two units Century Yarn and Century Denim eligible for 100% deduction under section 10B. AO records that assessee has incurred losses amounting to Rs.3,98,78,894 and Rs.2,67,95,075 respectively under the units. Therefore, the question of claiming exemption under section 10B may not arise. However, he treated some of the incomes as not derived from the exempted units. Before the CIT (A) assessee got substantial relief except on the following items: Particulars Century Yarn Century Denim i. Surplus on sales of assets 11,125 - ii. Bonus received against purchase of imported spares 1,64,886 - iii. Staff agreement deposit forfeited 30,831 26,794 iv. Amount recovered from employees against 1 month notice period salary 11,705 4,825 v. Bonus on spares purchased from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... press for the issue. Accordingly it is treated as not pressed. 4.6 In the result this ground is considered partly allowed. 5. Ground No.2 pertains to the issue of treating the forfeiture of security deposit collected from employees and assessee treating the same as capital in receipts. 5.1 At the time of hearing the learned Counsel at the outset fairly admitted that this issue is covered against assessee by the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.3926/Mum/2005 for AY 2001-02 vide order dated 16.05.2012 and also by ITA No.6365/Mum/2005 for AY 2002-03 dated 31.10.2012. 5.2 After going through the orders of the preceding years, we find that this issue stands covered against assessee from many years and therefore, we do not intend to disturb the findings of the Coordinate bench. The ground is decided against assessee and accordingly dismissed. 6. Ground No.3 pertains to the confirmation of the amounts paid as penalty which are as under: Penalty paid in respect of compliance of Central Excise Rule, 1944 in Century Cement Division Rs.3000 Penalty paid under CST Act in Maihar Cement Division Rs.2,49,250 Penalty paid under Central Excise Duty in Maihar Cement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... current year, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO to re-examine the exact nature of payments, i.e., whether these are compensatory or these are penal in nature. The ground is allowed to that extant. Ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes." 6.2 Respectfully following the above, we restore the matter to the file of AO to examine the exact nature of the amounts paid and consider accordingly. Ground No.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground No.4 pertains to the disallowing the leasehold amount written off in various Divisions of Rs.1,80,291. 7.1 The learned Counsel submitted that this issue has been restored to the file of AO in assessee's own case in AY 2001-02 and 2002-03. After going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that this issue has been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer following the earlier years‟ order after observing and holding as under :- "24. The issue had been set aside to the file of the AO in the preceding year in I.T.A. Nos. 3925 & 4170/Mum/2005 in assessment year 2000-01, for re- examination of the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round No.6 stands dismissed. 10. Ground No.7 is with reference to the disallowance of Rs.2,83,559 being interest paid on Income Tax as in earlier years this claim was not allowed by the CIT (A) as there is no reason for allowing the expenditure as business expenditure. This issue was confirmed against assessee by the orders of the ITAT in ITA No.6365/Mum &6269/Mum/2005 for AY 2002-03 wherein it was considered that there is no merit in such claim. Accordingly the same was not allowed and the ground stands dismissed. 11. Ground No.8 pertains to the action of AO of disallowing the amount of Rs.3,03,477 being the interest paid to SSI Units on delayed payments. The learned Counsel fairly admitted that this issue stands covered against assessee in assessee's own case in earlier AYs. After going through the orders passed by the ITAT in 2001-02 and 2002-03, we find that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that this issue stands covered against assessee in assessee's own case from AYs 1990-01 onwards. In view of the admitted position, this issue is decided against assessee and the ground is rejected. 12. Ground No.9 pertains to the action of AO in disallowing provisions in respect of dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessee following the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Is Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.292 ITR (AT) 144 (Mum)(SB) which in turn was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Al Kabir Exports Ltd. In view of the settled position of the law, AO is directed to workout the 80HHC deductions on the book profits separately and allow the same. Ground is considered allowed. 15. Ground No.12 is general in nature and need no adjudication. In the result appeal is partly allowed. ITA No.6106/Mum/2006 - Revenue Appeal 16. This is a Revenue appeal in which the Revenue has raised three grounds. Ground No. 4 & 5 being general in nature. 17. Ground No. 1 pertains to the issue of allowing foreign travel expenses of Mrs. S.D. Birla, wife of Shri B.K. Birla, Chairman of the company without appreciating the fact that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee. Even though this issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in earlier years, as seen from the orders of the previous year in AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03, the issue is restored to the file of AO to examine in detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
