Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 19 - ITAT DELHIFees paid to ROC for increase in authorized share capital - CIT(A) allowed part relief - Held that:- There is no dispute that there was no fresh inflow of funds to the extent of Rs. 35 crores in regard to increase in equity shares capital of the company and, therefore, ROC fees and other related expenses on this account of increase in authorized share capital was revenue in nature, in view of the decision of General Insurance Corporation Ltd. [2006 (9) TMI 116 - SUPREME Court]. As regards the fresh cash infusion during the year towards preference share, CIT(A) has treated the expenditure incurred towards ROC fees etc. as capital in nature as relying on Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1996 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court) and Brooke Bond India Ltd vs. CIT (1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court) - No interference in CIT(A) conclusion required. Against revenue. Contribution to the employees provident fund - was required to be deposited on 20.02.2005 but was deposited on 21.02.2005 as 20.02.2005 was Sunday - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- No reason to interfere with his order of CIT(A) because, as rightly observed by him, even otherwise the deduction was allowable to assessee by the decision of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The grievance of the department that since assessee had not claimed in the return of income this deduction, the same was not allowable in view of the decision of the Goetze India Ltd (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court) is misplaced because this decision does not put any embargo on the powers of appellate authority to allow a legally. In favour of assessee. Related party transaction - Addition computed at the rte of 6% towards interest - CIT (A) deleted the addition following the order of assessment year 2007-08 - Held that:- As department has not brought on record for distinguishing features from the earlier year to persuade a different view therefore, respectfully following the decision for assessment year 2007-08 wherein held that there is no nexus between the borrowings made by the assessee company and advance given to M/s. Hero Global Design Ltd. Similarly, the outstanding sums extracted represents the sales consideration of assets, technical know-how, rent etc. which are not the advance given by the assessee out of the borrowed funds. In such circumstances, no disallowance can be made. In favour of assessee.
|