9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Assessee and against the Revenue. Addition representing the customs duty paid on imports claimed as a deduction under Section 43B - Held that:- This was directly paid by the Assessee to the customs authorities and paid during the AY in question. Consequently, it was correctly allowed as a deduction by the ITAT. Question (iii) therefore, is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Addition of duty drawback - Held that:- The issue of duty drawback in any event is answered in favour of the Assessee by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries [2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that “income accrues when it becomes due but it must also be accompanied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard, the observations of the ITAT in para 41 of the impugned are reiterated, viz. that the AO should, while giving effect to the ITAT’s order, ensure that no double deduction is allowed. Therefore, he will ensure that the deduction allowed in this year under Section 43B of the Act is included in the income of the next year when such opening stock is disposed of. - ITA No. 250/2005 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2017 - MR. S. MURALIDHAR AND MR. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Puneet Rai, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr. Gaurav Kheterpal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Ms. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be included in the taxable income of the Assessee for the AY 1999-2000? v. Whether the ITAT is right in holding that customs duty of ₹ 2.99 crore paid on 28.4.1999 can be capitalised with retrospective effect and depreciation should be calculated by including the said amount in the AY 1999-2000? vi. Whether the ITAT has correctly interpreted Section 14A of the Act and is right in holding that onus under the aforesaid section is upon the Revenue and not on Assessee? vii. Whether the ITAT is right in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 4.59 crores on account of interest under Section 14A of the Act? viii. Whether the ITAT is right in holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in making addition of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to the Court, was not necessary to do so. The issue of duty drawback in any event is answered in favour of the Assessee by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) where it was held that income accrues when it becomes due but it must also be accompanied by a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount. Only then can it be said that for the purposes of taxability that the income is not hypothetical and it has really accrued to the Assessee. In the context of that case which concerned the benefit under a scheme of advance licenses under the duty entitlement passbook scheme, it was observed: 21. In so far as the present case is concerned, even if it is assumed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Supreme Court in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) and of this Court in CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 338 (Del) . Further, the ITAT has rendered a factual finding that the Assessee was seized of sufficient funds which it could have invested and therefore, there was no question of disallowance of any amount on account of interest under Section 14A of the Act. Both questions are therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 11. Turning now to Question (viii), in view of the decision of this Court in ITA No. 31 of 2005, it is held that the ITAT need not have remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh determination. The AO was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
