9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book profit." 3. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring loss of Rs. (-)1,85,25,248/- was filed on 30th Sep, 2012. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 12th August, 2013. Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 4th March, 2015. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance of 1,32,900/- u/s. 14A r.w.s. 8D of the I.T. Rule 1962, disallowance interest of Rs. 3,23,597/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 3,41,18,332/- as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has contested these additions in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has deleted all these additions made by the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue against deleting these additions are adjudicated as under:- Ground No. 1 (Deleting addition of Rs. 1,32,900/- u/s. 14A of the Act) 4. During the course of assessment on verification of the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has made substantial in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer has not accepted the submission of the assessee and determined interest of Rs. 3,23,597/- @ 12% on the loan amount of Rs. 26,96,648/- advanced to its associated concern. 8. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee after following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself on similar issue and identical facts pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 vide ITA No. 1650/Ahd/2012 dated 31st October, 2011 holding that assessee company had sufficient interest free funds. 9. Heard both the sides on this issue. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has given interest free advance of Rs. 26,96,648/- to its related company namely Crosstown Power Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer had made disallowance of Rs. 3,23,597/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance after following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself on identical issue and facts pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 vide ITA No. 1650/Ahd/12. On perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia Pvt. Ltd. 12. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has received funds from Corrteck International Pvt. Ltd. to the amount of Rs. 3,33,33,000/- and an amount of Rs. 7,85,332/- from Crosstown Power India Pvt. Ltd. totaling to Rs. 3,45,18,232/-. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 3,41,18,332/- u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act as deemed dividend on the ground that the assessee company was a subsidiary of Corrteck Energy Ltd. and Crosstown Power India Pvt. Ltd. was a subsidiary of Corrteck International Pvt. Ltd. During the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. counsel has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- DCIT vs. Corrtech Energy Ltd. ITA 1970/Ahd/2015 and others, M/s. Precimetal Cast. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO -ITA 3499/ahd/2015, ACIT vs. Leela Ship Recycling Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1658/Ahd/2012, CIT vs. Mahavir Inducto Pvt. Ltd. -Tax Appeal 891 of 2016, ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colors Pvt. Ltd. -118 ITR 1 (Mum)(SB) & CIT vs. Ankitech (P.) Ltd.- 340 ITR 14 (Del) The identical issue on similar fact has been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir Lordships have extensively reproduced from Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Anitech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and concurred with the same. Thus, in a case in which an amount is received from a person other than the shareholder, as is the admitted position in this case, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot indeed be invoked. The CIT(A) was thus justified in granting the impugned relief in respect of the addition under section 2(22)(e). We, therefore, approve the conclusion arrived at by the learned CIT(A) in this regard, and decline to interfere in the matter on that count." We have also through the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mahavir Inducto Pvt. Ltd. supra wherein the identical issue on same facts was decided in favour of the assessee after following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others vide IT Appeal No. 114 of 2012 and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 14 Delhi. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under:- "50. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
