Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 634 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance of interest on money borrowed for purchase and installation of plant and machinery - ITAT deleted disallowance - Held that:- The question answered against the revenue, at the time of admission of the appeal by relying upon a judgment Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), therefore, does not require any further consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of excise duty on closing stock - application of section 145 A - Assessing Officer included excise duty while computing opening and closing stock - ITAT deleted disallowance - Held that:- A perusal of Section 145(A) of the Act and the clarification relating to the method of accounting, contained in the circular issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant, does not enable us to hold that the opinion recorded by the Tribunal is in any manner perverse or arbitrary. The fact that the judgment in M/s Indo Nippon Chemical Industries Limited's case (Supra) relates to modvat credit would make no difference as it is the method of accountancy and the principle affirmed in M/s Indo Nippon Chemical Industries Limited's case (2003 (1) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court) that is relevant. Decided against the revenue. Interest on interest free advances to directors and other parties - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- Decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by setting aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and restoring the matter to the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter afresh after taking into consideration the opinion recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s S.A. Builders Ltd's case (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ). - Decided against the assessee Interest on excess refund - whether Section 234D of the Act does not apply to the case of the assessee ? - Held that:- A bare perusal of Section 234D of the Act, leaves no ambiguity that the assessee is liable to pay interest on excess refund. The opinion recorded by the Tribunal that Section 234D of the Act does not apply to the case of the assessee is incorrect. The assessee does not deny receipt of excess refund and, therefore, is obliged under Section 234D of the Act to pay interest. However, as Section 234D came into force on 01.06.2003 and admittedly does not operate retrospectively, the assessee would be required to pay interest from the date of incorporation of Section 234D i.e. 1.6.2003. Question of law is answered in favour of the revenue by holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest on excess refund from 1.6.2003. - Decided against assessee.
|