9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of the judgement of the Court dt. 4th Dec.2006. In other words, the right to interest crystallised after the judgement of the Court. Till then, it was inchoate. For this reason, the Tribunal’s finding cannot be faulted with - Decided against revenue. Addition being demurrage & wharfage charges - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- These charges are paid to the railways towards delay in loading and unloading operations beyond the time frame fixed by the Indian railways.The payment in question is not the penalty or fine for violation of any statute. It is compensatory in nature. See Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad vs. CIT (1979 (8) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court) - Decided against revenue. Disallowance being provision for post retir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi dated 29.4.2013 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Nitrogenous Fertilisers and other related industrial products. It filed its return of income on 29.9.2009 declaring income of ₹ 253,15,13,265/-. It was revised on 30.3.2011 declaring the very same income. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 14.11.2011 determining the total income at ₹ 350,78,38,270 inter alia making the following additions/disallowances. i. Business income Rs.253,15,13,265 ii. undisclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A} has erred in law and facts in ignoring the fact that the Railway Act has defined the demurrage and wharfage as the charge levied, charge means the blame or accusation, hence is of penalty nature; 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,79,00,000/- on account of disallowance of provision for post retirement benefits ignoring the fact that these are unascertained liabilities and cannot be allowed as per provisions of AS -15; 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 74;01,67,000/- on account of disallowance of provision for wage arrears ignoring the fact that as per assessee company, the calculation was made on estimated basis. Thus, these are un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to the terms of the repeated Arbitration Act, 1940, an award could not be enforceable. The same was the case with the foreign award, the Court had to first adjudicate as to the enforceability. In these circumstances, the assessee s right to interest was a mere claim, till the date of the judgement of the Court dt. 4th Dec.2006. In other words, the right to interest crystallised after the judgement of the Court. Till then, it was inchoate. For this reason, the Tribunal s finding cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 6.1. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss this ground of Revenue. 7. Ground no.2 is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 2,36,00,000 being dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is against the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 74,01,67,000 being a provision made for wage arrears. The First Appellate Authority has dealt with this issue at paras 8.1 to 8.10. The provision in this case was made based on an office memorandum dt. 26.11.2008 issued by the Government on the recognition of the Pay Revision Committee, for revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.2007. This is not a contingent liability. In the case of ACIT vs. NTPC in ITA 4246/Del/2011 order dt. 23.11.2011, the Tribunal at page 6 para 7 onwards held as follows. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT has held that if a business liability has definitel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
