9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. has offered the said interest to tax in its return of income filed for the impugned assessment year and after applying the decision of Hon'ble apex court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), allowed the appeal of the assessee. 05. The tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the ld. AO when the assessee failed to appear on the appointed date of hearing. Now, in the set aside assessment proceeding, the ld. AO again added the amount being interest paid to M/s Srei Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the facts are different from the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC),. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) has gone a step further while affirming the order of AO by holding and observing as under:- "9. Considering the aforesaid clear mandate of law, as the assessee company except for harping on its claim that the respective payees had included the interest incomes in their respective returns of income for the year under consideration and paid taxes on the same, had however failed to substantiate the same in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sum to tax by incorporating the same in his return of income and therefore, case is clearly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coc Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein it is held that no disallowance has to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act if the receiver/ payee of income has offered same to tax in the return of income. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance on this account. Moreover, the finding of the ld. CIT (A) that assessee has not filed the form no.26A read with 31ACB a certificate from Chartered Accountant, certifying the payee had fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the First Proviso to Sub Section 1 to Section 201 but after perusing the said section along with Rule 31ACB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, we note that the form 26A was not applicable during the impugned assessment year as the same was brought by IT(11th Amendment) Rules, 2012 with effect from 12.09.2012, which provides that under Rule 31ACB, the assessee is required to obtain a certificate from Accountant under First Proviso to Section 201 (1) and that certificate should be in form no.26A. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t company had entered into an agreement with Indian Railways under Wagon Investment Scheme on (WIS) 18.07 2006 and as per the said Scheme, the appellant company had purchased four BOXN rakes of Railway Wagons and put the same at the disposal of Indian Railways for 10 years. Thereafter, as per the agreement, the ownership of the wagons will transfer to Indian Railways. (ii) In consideration of the same, the appellant company had got 10% freight rebate on normal tariff rates. The said rebate granted to the appellant company for a period of 10 years for guaranteed supply of six wagons per month. Further, two additional wagons per month had been provided to the appellant without giving the rebate of 10%. (iii) The appellant company is maintaining set of books for its operation from Railway wagons at 86B/2 Gajraj Chambers, 2nd Floor, Topasia Road, Kolkata, West Bengal. (iv) For the previous year, relevant to the assessment year, under consideration, the appellant company had received premium from its clients for providing Railway Wagons as per their requirement. Thus the said premium was directly related to the said infrastructure facility i.e. on account and due to confirm supply of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;BOLT Scheme' shall be restricted to the Rail System other than on the rolling stock. Hence, in my considered view, the rolling stock would be part of the Rail System. The Infrastructure facilities, built, operated and maintained were not required to be transferred in view of clarification issued by the Railway Ministry. Hence, the wagons owned by the appellant were operated and maintained as part of Rail System which was managed by the Indian Railways and the appellant gets only premium at the rates specified in the agreement. It needs no mention that after 10 years, the impugned wagons will be the assets of the Indian Railways and the appellant company will not have any right over them. Discreet scrutiny of the terms of agreement between the appellant and the Indian Railways clearly evidences the fact that the impugned assets purchased by the appellant and kept at the disposal of the Indian Railways, under the aforementioned Scheme, was not transfer of assets on lease for a particular period. If it were so, immediately on expiry of the lease period, the assets so transferred by the leaser to the lessee, under the lease agreement, were required to be restored back to the lesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant under the said Scheme, needs to be cumulatively appreciated in proper perspective particularly when the privileges accorded by the law framers, by allowing such deductions, were only for augmentation and development of the industrial growth and viewed in this perspective and taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts enumerated above, which were not controverted by the AO, in my considered view, the appellant is entitled to the deduction u/s 801A of the Act. The AO is, accordingly, directed to allow the deduction of Rs. 1,08.41,626/- u/s 801A of the Act, since the appellant fulfilled all the conditions for entitlement of the said deduction. 3. The total relief allowed is summarized below: Vide Para No.1.12. Rs. 73,20,545/- Vide Para No.2.9. Rs. 1,08,41,626/- Total relief Rs. 1,81,62,171/- 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 012. In the appellate proceeding before the ld. CIT (A) against the order of ld. AO in the second round, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the return of income has not been filed by the assessee within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the Act and therefore, deduction u/s 80IA is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
