9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and sale of electricity. The return of income for year under consideration was filed by it on 30.10.2004 declaring loss of Rs.24,28,04,993 and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.59,56,01,809/-. In the Profit Loss Account filed alongwith the said return, a sum of Rs.10,31,901/- was debited by the assessee on account of donation and charity. From the perusal of the details of the said amount, it was noticed by the AO that the expenses claimed by the assessee on donation and charity included contribution of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid to a school. According to the AO, the expenditure on payment of contribution to school was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The same therefore was disallowed by him. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance holding that there was failure on the part of the assessee to establish any nexus of the said expenditure with its business. 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the expenditure in question on payment of contribution to the school claimed by the assessee was disallowed by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio of the decisions referred in para 25 to 29 of this order, we hold that the payment of tax received by the assessee is a part of tariff charges as per agreements (supra) and, hence, it is an income in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, the said amount without allowing any deduction is liable to be included in the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in upholding the order of the A.O. in treating the same as income. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, rejected . 8. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material of facts relevant thereto are similar to that A.Y. 2003-04, we respectfully follow the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal rendered in A.Y. 2003-04 and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO on account of the incometax recoverable from GEB/Essar Steel Ltd. while computing the income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act. Ground no. 2 of the assessee s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. The issue raised in Ground no. 3 of the assessee appeal as well as in Ground no. 3 of the Revenue s appeal relates to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its employees as income from business instead of income from other sources as treated by the AO. 13. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Representative of both sides have agreed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal passed in assessee own case for the earlier years. In one of such orders dated 11.08.2008 passed in ITA No.6430/Mum/2003 for A.Y.2000-01, it was held by the Tribunal that interest received by the assessee on the loans given to the employees was assessable as its business income. The said order has been followed by the Tribunal to decide the similar issue in favour of the assessee in A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 vide its order dated 01.08.2008 and 09.11.2012 passed in ITA No. 631/Mum/2006 and 5725/Mum/2007 respectively. Respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the earlier years on similar issue, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) treating the interest received by the assessee on loans and advance given to its employees as its business income. Ground no. 1 of the revenue s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. In the Ground No.2, the revenue has challenged the actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made to the total income of the assessee on account of the income-tax recoverable from GUVNL and Essar Steel Ltd. while computing the income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act is similar to the one invoked in ground no. 2 for 2004-05 which has already been decided by us in forgoing portion of this order. Following our conclusion drawn in A.Y. 2004-05 on this issue, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO on account of income-tax recoverable from GUVNL and Essar Steel Ltd. and dismiss Ground no. 1 of the assessee s appeal. 19. As regards Ground No.2 and 3 of the assessee s appeal for 2005- 06, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the disallowance of expenses made u/s 14A is similar to the one involved in ground no. 3 of the assessee s appeal for A.Y.2004-05 which is already decided by us in the forgoing portion of this order. Following conclusion drawn by us for A.Y. 2004-05 on the similar issue, we set-aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of Rs.10,53,357/- as made by the AO. Ground no. 2 3 of the assessee s appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of the assessee s appeal. 24. As regards Ground No.2 and 3 of the assessee s appeal for 2006- 07, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the disallowance of expenses made u/s 14A is similar to the one involved in ground no. 3 of the assessee s appeal for A.Y.2004-05 which is already decided by us in the forgoing portion of this order. Following conclusion drawn by us for A.Y. 2004-05 on the similar issue, we set-aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and confirm the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of Rs.50,73,008/- as made by the AO. Ground no. 2 3 of the assessee s appeal are accordingly treated as partly allowed. 25. As regards Ground no. 1 of the Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to determination of head of income under which interest income on margin money deposits and employees loans is chargeable to tax is similar to the one involved in Ground no. 1 of the Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2004-05, which has been decided by us in the forgoing portion of this order. Following our conclusion drawn in A.Y. 2004-05 on the similar issue, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) treati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
