9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 (1) TMI 741 - ITAT DELHI ] the issue is decided in favour of the assessee, we hold that principally the issue is in favour of the assessee. Revenue authorities have also pointed out that assessee has not given necessary breakup and particular of interests mentioned in CIT s order as above. We remit this issue to the file of the AO to obtain the necessary breakup and follow the ITAT order as above. - ITA No.1259/Del./2017 , ITA No.7745/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2022 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Ms. Deepashree Rao, CA Ms. Shivangi Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Senior DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-44, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 2013-14. 2. Since the issues are common and connected the appeals were heard together and these are consolidated for the sake of convenience. 3. For the sake of reference, we are referring to grounds of appeal for AY 2012-13 which read as under :- 1.01 That the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provision made by the appellant under the aforesaid scheme was not being made on a scientific or logical basis and therefore the provision, is not allowable as deduction. 4.01 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the legal position, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the reduction of the deduction allowable u/s 80IC of the Act in respect of the units at Baddi-I and Haridwar-I, to the extent of Rs.11,33,863/-, by excluding interest income earned by the said units, while computing the eligible profits. 4.02 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in alleging that the appellant has not substantiated the claim of Rs.15,41,152/- received by the units eligible under section 80IC of the IT Act, 1961. 5.01 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the legal position, the learned CIT (A) has erred in not allowing the deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess of Rs.2,06,02,623/-. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of electric equipments and power distribution products such as building c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same are to be attributed. Another proposition made is that no notional income can be imputed u/s 92. Without prejudice, it is submitted that vide Finance Act, 1992, Explanation to Section 92B was inserted to clarify that international transactions include inter alia capital financing including any type of long term or short term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities ..or any other debt arising during the course of business . Ld. counsel contended that same amendment does not apply to assessee s case. However, in all fairness, he submitted that corporate guarantee issue is covered partly in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case by the Delhi Bench of the ITAT for the AY 2014-15 in ITA No.6509/Del/2018 vide order dated 09.05.2022 wherein it is held as under:- 6. At the outset, the ld. AR argued that providing corporate guarantee is in the nature of shareholders activities and is not an international transaction as investment in subsidiary company is not an international transaction as held in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. and Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. It was argued that the assessee has not incurred any co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Rs.8,70,954/- are allowed and the difference of Rs.3,89,27,433/- i.e. [{Rs.11,59,94,573/- - Rs.7,61,96,186/- (8,70,954)}] is disallowed and added to total income. 13. Upon assessee s appeal, ld. CIT (A) relied upon its orders for AYs 2008-09 2009-10 and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 14. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that this issue has been consistently decided by the ITAT in assessee s favour by holding that the provisions are to be allowed in AYs 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 2009-10 and AY 2014-15. 16. Upon hearing both the parties, we find that the issue is decided by the ITAT in assessee s own case in assessee s favour consistently, hence we follow the same and are of the opinion that the provisions made in this regard are allowable. We may gainfully refer to the order of ITAT for AY 2014-15 (supra) which reads as under :- 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused all the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the disallowance of pro vision made with respect to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant during the assessment proceeding or even during the appellate proceeding has not proved that such FDR are related to business of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/ s 80IC of the Act. Similarly, the Ld AR's argument for netting of is without any basis or working. Accordingly I confirm the addition made by the assessing officer for excluding these interest incomes for the computation of deduction u/ s 80IC of the Act. Ld AR has argued that interest to the extent of 19,02,143/- is on fixed deposit pledged with sales tax department, electricity department and interest received from debtors. Therefore, has claimed that it is inextricably connected with business activity. Ld AR has reproduced the appellant reply dt. 05/01/2016 where it is claimed that interest to the extent of Rs. 19,02,143/- is on account of FDR pledged with electricity department, sales tax department and also debtors against late payments. The assessing officer has considered this reply of the appellant and he was of the view that the appellant has reduced its claim of deduction u/s 80IC by amounting of Rs. 14,04,654/- on account of interest. Therefore, to the extent audit report in form no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
