9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has satisfied all the conditions in order to avail benefit of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act. Apart from that, learned advocate for the appellant-Revenue is not in a position to show how the findings of the Tribunal are bad in law and on facts. - Decided in favour of the assessee. Loan as advanced by the family members - Held that:- We are convinced with the arguments of the learned authorised representative as to prevailing market rate for the loans of permanent in nature and long-term loans is between 18 per cent. to 24 per cent. whereas the cases compared by the Assessing Officer are pertaining to the loans of temporary in nature. Also the assessee has advanced the money for the purpose of business needs, is not under di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w in deleting and restricting the trading additions which were made after rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the deduction under section 80-IA when the assessee does not fall in the same ? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing to allow the higher rate of interest to the persons specified under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act ? D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 547 of 2009 admitted on September 7, 2009 : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the deduction under section 80-IB when the assessee does not fall in the same ? D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 348 of 2011 admitted on October 12, 2011 : (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in answering the issue contained in paragraphs 17 and 19 of the impugned order as grounds Nos. 1 and 2 against the Revenue (appellant herein) without assigning any reasons except to rely upon their earlier view said to have been taken by the Tribunal in respect of this very assessee for the previous year without quoting as to what was that view ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of ₹ 1,29,629 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax (Appeals) and contended that the issue of section 145(3) which has been adjudicated by the Assessing Officer has wrongly been considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. On the question of deduction made under section 80-IA, she further contended that the benefits were not granted in view of the short fall which was made in view of the observations made by the Assessing Officer. Even as per section 40A(2)(b), the rate of interest which was paid to the family members was not consistent with the other persons whereas the family members were granted amount on a higher side, and therefore, the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in allowing these expenses. 5. In one of the Appeal No. 365 of 2011, addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kota has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 80,122 made by the Assessing Officer on account of insurance expenses despite the fact that the same was not allowable considering the method of accounting followed by the assessee. 8. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of CIT v. Satellite Engineering Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 208 (Guj), CIT v. Seeyan Plywoods [1991] 190 ITR 564 (Ker) and CIT v. Bhawani Forge P. Ltd. in Tax Appeal Nos. 1321, 1326 and 1328 of 2006 decided on December 1, 2014 (Guj.) 9. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 10. On the first issue, in our considered opinion, in view of the observations made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to issue of loan which was advanced by the family members, the Tribunal has rightly observed in para 13 which reads as under : 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are convinced with the arguments of the learned authorised representative as to prevailing market rate for the loans of permanent in nature and long-term loans is between 18 per cent. to 24 per cent. whereas the cases compared by the Assessing Officer are pertaining to the loans of temporary in nature. Also the assessee has advanced the money for the purpose of business needs, is not under dispute. Therefore, in such circumstances and facts of the case, the Assessing Officer is not justified in considering the said payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
