9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deletion on account of non-inclusion of Excise duty – Duty pertaining to closing stock of raw material – Contravention of section 145A of the Act – Held that:- Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 145A on account of non-inclusion of Excise Duty pertaining to the closing stock of raw material for the immediately preceding year – the decision in CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminum Ltd. [2007 (11) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT, DELHI] followed - No distinguishing features for the current year have been pointed out by the revenue – the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. Deletion of disallowance of excess claim of depreciation – Depreciation on scanners and CD w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per R. S. Syal , AM: These two cross appeals one by the assessee and other by the Revenue - arise out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 22.3.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Revised grounds filed by the Revenue have been taken on record. 3. First ground taken by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 10,75,37,079/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference between the income appearing in the TDS certificates and income offered for taxation. Briefly stated the facts of this ground as recorded in para 3 of the assessment order are that the assessee earned income from contract sales and the product sales. In respect of contract sales, the assessee claimed that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing addition of Rs. 29.08 crore as reproduced by the Tribunal in its order are mutatis mutandis similar to those for the current year. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments at length, ordered for the deletion of the addition. The Revenue challenged the said Tribunal order before the Hon ble Delhi High Court. Vide judgment dated 12.9.2013, the Hon ble Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue s appeal by holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration from the order of the Tribunal on this issue. A copy of the judgment is available on page 110 of the paper book. It can be seen from the record that the amount of Rs.29.08 crore which was shown as liability as at the end of the preceding year has been accounted for as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty in the closing stock of raw material in contravention to the provisions of sec. 145A. Filtering out unnecessary details, it is observed that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 145A on account of non-inclusion of Excise Duty pertaining to the closing stock of raw material for the immediately preceding year. When the matter finally came up before the Tribunal, the issue was restored for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminum Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 77 (Delhi). A copy of such order passed by the Tribunal is available in the paper book. No distinguishing features for the current year have been pointed out by the ld. DR. Respectfully following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 4,444/- during the year, which was claimed as exempt. In view of the fact that the assessee did not offer any disallowance u/s 14A, the Assessing Officer, after giving due notice to the assessee and recording proper reasons, made disallowance at Rs. 19,40,796/- as per Rule 8D. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the sustenance of such disallowance. 10. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we observe that the assessment year under consideration is 2009-10. As per the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272 (Delhi), the disallowance u/s 14A is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in CIT Vs Reliance Realities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has held to this extent. Similar view has been taken by Third Member of the Tribunal in Visen Industries Ltd. Vs Additional CIT (2012) 136 ITD 309 (Bom) (TM). The natural corollary which, therefore, follows is that if the interest free funds available at the assessee s disposal are more than the investments made which give exempt income then the presumption would be that such investments were financed out of the interest free funds available at the assessee s disposal. Once this is the case, there can be no question of attributing interest claimed in the profit and loss account to such investments. If there is no interest attributable to the investments bearing exempt in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
