9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s once consumed could not be reconverted into the same position, Its utility gets changed, The prime raw materials such as, maize, soya oil, rice bran etc. can no more be regarded to be the rice bran, soya oil, maize. Decided against revenue. Addition on account of netting off the interest income - HELD THAT:- We find the issue is covered by the consolidated order of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12 2012-13 [ 2018 (1) TMI 1709 - ITAT KOLKATA] to hold that only net interest income after adjusting the interest expenditure is liable to be excluded while computing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Dudhwewala, FCA. ORDER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [ CIT(A) ] for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue questioning the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of section 80-IB of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Heard both parties and persued the material available on record. We find the issue raised by the Revenue is covered by the consolidated order of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier years i.e. 2008-09, 2011-12 2012-13, which is placed on record. We find the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the case of the assessee Amrit Feeds (supra) was entirely different. The assessee's eligible undertaking itself was carrying out the complete activity i.e. from grinding till the pelletization. The raw materials once consumed could not be reconverted into the same position, Its utility gets changed, The prime raw materials such as, maize, soya oil, rice bran etc. can no more be regarded to be the rice bran, soya oil, maize. We are of the view that the issue in the Revenue's appeal is squarely covered against the revenue by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier years which was based on the decision rendered in the case of Amrit Feeds (supra). Respectfully following the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest income earned on FDRs in the said case was held to be chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources while interest expenditure constituted the business expenditure of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by the Tribunal that netting of the income under one head of income against expenditure under the different head of income is not possible as per law. In the present case, interest income was offered by the assessee to tax as business income and even the interest expenditure was also claimed under the same head as business expenditure. As regards the case of Asian Cement Industries vs.- ITAT (supra) cited by the ld. D.R., it is observed that even though the issue relating to the nettin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AR is that the assessee made investment in group companies which were for strategic business purposes and the said investments did not yield any exempt income during the year and without considering the same, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2) of the Rules for an amount of Rs.1,74,685/- and Rs.1,86,766/- under the Rule 8D(2) totaling to 3,61,451/- vide its order dated 30.03.2015. The same contention was made before the CTI(A) that the assessee has made investments in group companies which were made for strategic business purposes, the investment did not yield any exempt income during the year and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the purpose u/s 14A is not maintainable. The CIT(A) considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of DCIT vs. Binani Industries Ltd. (ITA No.443/kol/2013) has held that no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted where the investments are made in associate and subsidiary companies for strategic business purposes. Keeping in view the ratio decided by the jurisdictional Kolkata Bench of ITAT and other judicial authorities, assessee s appeal on these grounds are allowed. 10. On perusal of the impugned order the portion of which reproduced hereinabove, we find that no dividend was earned in the investments made in shares of the group associate companies in all cases but however the said issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. in [2018] 91 taxmann.com 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
