Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 577 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed fact that the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the assessee itself vide CIT vs. Corrteck Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that in absence of exempt income disallowance u/s. 14A is unwarranted. Taking into consideration we do not find any infirmity in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Addition on interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) - AO noticed that assessee company has given interest free advances to its related company - HELD THAT:- As demonstrated from the account of the assessee that it was having interest free fund of ₹ 29,15,05,249/- as against interest free loan of ₹ 26,96,648/-. We have also considered the judicial pronouncements referred by the ld. counsel in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT] and RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] particularly on the issue that when assessee has substantial interest free funds disallowance u/s. 36(1) (iii) is unwarranted. In the light of the above facts and findings, we do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) - assessee company was a subsidiary of Corrteck Energy Ltd. and Crosstown Power India Pvt. Ltd. was a subsidiary of Corrteck International Pvt. Ltd - HELD THAT:- The identical issue on similar fact has been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Precimetal Casts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2020 (12) TMI 1152 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] after following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MAHAVIR INDUCTOMELT PVT. LTD. [2017 (1) TMI 1159 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] holding that for the applicability of section 2(22)(e) it is required that the assessee company must be a share holder in the company from whom the loan or advances has been taken and it does not provide that any share holders in the assessee company who had taken any loan or advance from another company in which such share holder is also a share holder having substantial interest. - Decided against revenue.
|