9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year and accounting for the resultant profit/loss. AO totally ignored this fact as well as the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] . Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Addition of interest on refund - HELD THAT:- The records show that no refund has been received by the assessee in A.Y. 2011-12 which was received in June 2014 after adjustment of outstanding demands. The interest income was offered to tax in A.Y. 2015-16 by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) has given a proper finding and there is no need to interfere with the same. Ground No. 2 of Revenue s app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case, Id. CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition of interest on refund of ₹ 1,35,51,996/- by ignoring the fact that the interest income of ₹ 1,35,51,996/- was received during the year under consideration and cannot be deferred to further years as the assessee is using mercantile system of accounting? 3. Whether on the facts the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition on account of default as per AIR information of ₹ 1,13,58,600/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee even after providing sufficient opportunities failed to proof that there is no default of TAN either before the AO or the CIT(A)? 3. HCL Comnet Limited, a company incorporated under the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was incorrect in deleting the addition of interest on refund of ₹ 1,35,51,996/- by ignoring the fact that the interest income was received during the year under consideration and cannot be defer to further years when the assessee is using mercantile systems of accounting. As regards Ground No. 3, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of defect as per AIR Information of ₹ 1,13,58,600/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee even after providing sufficient opportunities fail to prove that there is no default of TAN either before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l amount to the double standards adopted by the Department. (e) U/s 43A (pre-amendment), the change in the rate of exchange subsequent to the acquisition of asset triggers the adjustment in the actual cost of the assets. Actual payment of the liability as a consequence of the exchange variation is not required. The amendment of s. 43A by the FA 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 is not clarificatory. Note: The judgement of the ITAT Special Bench in ONGC vs. ITO 83 1TD 151 has been approved by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of C1T vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd 312 ITR 254. Respectfully, following the order of the Hon. Supreme Court in 312 ITR 254 the issue is decided in favour of the appellant. The AO is directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l grant the consequential relief. The records show that no refund has been received by the assessee in A.Y. 2011-12 which was received in June 2014 after adjustment of outstanding demands. The interest income was offered to tax in A.Y. 2015-16 by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) has given a proper finding and there is no need to interfere with the same. Ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 9. As regards Ground No. 3, the CIT(A) held as under:- I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submission of the Ld AR. 1 agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that the appellant has right to receive the information or the evidence, against it, in possession of the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
