9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er concerns. We further note that assessee has given fresh advances amounting to ₹ 48,50,000/- to M/s SK Enterprises & ₹ 14,50,000/- to M/s Pride Sales Corporation (Totaling ₹ 63,00,000/-) during the impugned AY 2012-13 out of own funds amounting to ₹ 18,60,06,299.47 (Rs. 18.60 cr.) which too is far in excess of advances to sister concerns and the interest free advances are from own funds as the loan amount as on 31.3.2012 has been reduced by ₹ 11,34,102/-. On going through the AO’s assessment order in assessee’s own case for the preceding year i.e. AY 2011-12 it was noted that no addition u/s. 36(1)(iii) has been made in the assessment passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and also on perusal of the CIT(A)’s order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voked for the said disallowance are both under challenge alongwith the quantum thereof. 3. Because the action is being under challenge on facts and law, while not taking into consideration the additional evidences of whatsoever kind which are the materials facts containing material particulars to the present case. 4. Because the disallowance of ₹ 13,779/- (1/6th of ₹ 82,673/-) attributable to personal usage is being challenged on the facts and law since the said disallowance is excessive and unreasonably made. Prayer: For any consequential relief and / or legal claim arising out of this appeal and for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding amount) of other parties dealing with these concerns . The AO accordingly held that the assessee had tried to intentionally camouflage the transaction by putting the name of these finn under the head sundry debtors but actually these are loans and advances by the appellant to his sister concerns and that too interest free. The AO held that it was evident that the amounts were advanced by the appellant to its related parties to repay the liability of 3rd party which was a non business purpose. The AO referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vis Abhishek Industries (286 ITR 1) (2006) and decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case Somasundram Bros. V/s CIT (238 ITR 939) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 the assessee has given interest free advances to sister concern amounting to ₹ 1,98,64,866.85 out of own funds amounting to ₹ 38,01,36,440.98 which is far in excess of advances to sister concerns. He further stated that assessee has given fresh advances amounting to ₹ 48,50,000/- to M/s SK Enterprises ₹ 14,50,000/- to M/s Pride Sales Corporation (Totaling ₹ 63,00,000/-) during the impugned AY 2012-13 out of own funds amounting to ₹ 18,60,06,299.47 (Rs. 18.60 cr.) which too is far in excess of advances to sister concerns. He further stated that interest free advances are from own funs as the loan amount as on 31.3.2012 has been reduced by ₹ 11,34,102/- too. He draw our attention towards the AO s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the similar additions. - Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs. CIT (2011) 186 Taxman 404 (Del) - Thukral Regal Shoes vs. CIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 192 (Punjab Haryana High Court) - Abhishek Industires vs. CIT (2006) 156 Taxmann 257 (Punjab Haryana). - CIT vs. R. Mohan (2011-TIOL-687-HC/MAD-IT) - CIT vs. Cornerstone Exports P Ltd. (2016) 67 taxmann.com 345 (Gujarat) - CIT vs. Cornerstone Exports (P) Ltd. (2016) 238 Taxman 465. - Hon ble Gujarat High Court. - Narasu s Spinning Mills vs. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 512. ITAT, Chennai. - Abhishek Industies Ltd. (2006) 156 Taxmann 257 (P H). - CIT vs. R. Mohan (2011)-TIOL-687-HC-MAD-IT. - Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so on perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) s order in AY 2013-14, we note that Ld. CIT(A) Rohtak vide his order dated 11.4.2017 (Page 35- 41 of PB) has allowed the assessee s appeal for the succeeding assessment year i.e. AY 2013-14, on the same issue of Section 36(1)(iii) relating to same parties considering assessee s submissions. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and following the principle of consistency, the addition of ₹ 37,17,140/- in dispute is deleted. 7.1 As far as the addition on account of telephone expense is concerned, we note that no specific finding has been made to indicate that the expenses incurred could have been of a personal nature, therefore, we delete the same. 8. In the result, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
