9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee by the decision in United Glass Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held that club membership fee incurred by the assessee for its employees is purely a business expenditure, hence, allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Computation of deduction u/s 80HHD - AO relying upon the assessment order passed in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002–03 has included the payment made to other hoteliers in the total receipts for computing deduction under section 80HHD - HELD THAT:- As decided in favour of assessee in assessment years 2002–03 held that for the amounts, the assessee has issued certificate in Form 10CCAC cannot be treated as a receipt for the purpose of total business and accordingly directed the AO to exclude the receipt passed on by the assessee to other hotel and travel agent. For second/other receipt it was held that the said amount of foreign currency realized after 30.09.2009 have not entered the numerator i.e. receipt earned by assessee from rendering service to foreign tourist which would not enter the den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31st October 2003, declaring income of ₹ 11,89,46,961. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown a loan of ₹ 2 crore from USG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, on which it has claimed to have paid interest @ 15% amounting to ₹ 12,50,000. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to furnish confirmation of the lender. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee could neither furnish the loan confirmation nor offered any explanation about the nature and source of the loan. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the loan availed of ₹ 2 crore along with interest paid on it amounting to ₹ 12,50,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4. On the basis of submissions made by the assessee and evidences filed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In his remand report, the Assessing Officer being satisfied with assessee s exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 12,50,000 on the said amount. However, during remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer after examining the nature and source of the amount of ₹ 2 crore received by the assessee having found that it was an advance against sale of land accepted assessee s claim. It is evident, assessee wanted to sell one of its property in Delhi to USG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. since it needed finance for its business activities. It is also a fact on record that since the assessee could not hand over the possession of the property within the agreed period, it paid the interest on the advance received as per the terms of the agreement. Therefore, there is factually no dispute on the issue of payment of interest by the assessee. Therefore, once the nature and source of amount of ₹ 2 crore received by the assessee is accepted, the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer by treating the advance received as unexplained cash credit has to be deleted. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. This ground is dismissed. 8. In ground no.2, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance made on account of payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticing that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by him in assessment years 2002 03 and 2004 05 allowed assessee s claim for exclusion of the amount of ₹ 27,10,05,528, from the total receipts for computation of deduction under section 80HHD of the Act. 17. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer relying upon the assessment order passed in assessee s own case for assessment year 2002 03 has included the payment made to other hoteliers in the total receipts for computing deduction under section 80HHD of the Act. However, when identical issue arising in assessee s own case for assessment year 2002 03 came up for consideration before the Tribunal in ITA no.1924/Mum./2007, dated 19th January 2018, the Tribunal has held as under: 26. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorizes below. The AO included first receipt i.e. ₹ 30.31 (approx) crore in receipt of business holding that there is not express provision in section 80HHD for exclusion from the total receipt. Receipt no.2 of ₹ 66.39 lakhs was included by AO holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed. 19. In ground no.4, the Revenue has challenged the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow assessee s claim of deduction under section 80HHD of the Act in respect of foreign exchange fluctuation gain amounting to ₹ 1,42,03,378. 20. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has included foreign exchange fluctuation gain of ₹ 1,42,03,378, in the total receipts for computing deduction under section 80HHD of the Act, called upon the assessee to justify the claim. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer having noticed that in the assessment order passed for assessment year 2002 03, similar claim made by the assessee was disallowed, followed the same and disallowed the claim of the assessee in the impugned assessment year as well. 21. While deciding the aforesaid issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee s claim by following his decision in case of the assessee for assessment year 2002 03. 22. We have considered rival submissions and perused material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 77,24,237, payable under the head Goa . Alleging that in spite of several opportunities the assessee could not explain the nature of expenditure, he disallowed the amount by treating it as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). While deciding the issue relating to the aforesaid disallowance, learned Commissioner (Appeals) though agreed with the assessee that there being no unexplained expenditure, disallowance under section 69C of the Act cannot be made, however, he held that apart from filing copy of ledger accounts, which were not authenticated by the creditor, the assessee could not explain the nature and source of the amount of ₹ 77,24,237, credited in the books of account. Accordingly, he treated it as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 28. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, assessee maintains running account with various hotels at Goa for booking rooms on behalf of the customers. He submitted, the amount payable to the hotel is shown as trade creditors in the books of account. He submitted, while the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
