Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 464 - ITAT AHMEDABADAddition on account of interest free loan to sister concern from interest bearing funds - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is evident that the CIT(A) first of all holds that assessee’s sister concern has already paid substantial incentive in the shape of extra discount of ₹ 57,86,650/- in the impugned assessment year followed by ₹ 1,58,66,599/- in the succeeding assessment year. Coming to the fact as to whether the assessee invested its interest bearing funds in its sister concern or not, the lower appellate findings under challenge read that the assessee’s non-interest bearing funds are much more than the investments in question. The CIT(A) follows hon’ble Bombay high court decision in Reliance Utilities and Power ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] drawing presumption of utilization of non-interest bearing funds in such an eventuality. There can hardly be any dispute on the former aspect that similar investments involving commercial expediency based on facts do not invite any interest disallowance as held in SA Builders’ case (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ). The Revenue does not refer to any evidence on record rebut both these factual findings. We find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order directing to delete the impugned interest disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of claim for bogus/expired and damaged goods - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case it is practice in the pharmaceuticals business that some products have to be expired or damages and all the retailers are not able to sell the goods within expiry of date, even branded goods some time expired. The appellant had shown expiry of goods’ percentage more than 4%. During the year, goods expired was ₹ 7,94,441/- and goods replaced at ₹ 1,46,60,484/- which is 2.46%, is reasonable. Keeping in view the past history of the assessee, the ld. A.O. had not brought on record any evidence that the appellant had made sale outside the books. Even, no evidence during the course of search were found, which was relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. The Settlement Commission also accepted the assessee’s disclosure of further any additional disclosure on this issue. Thus, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A).- Decided in favour of assessee Excess depreciation allowance - Held that:- The Revenue invites our attention to paper book pages 81 to 92 comprising of the CIT(A)’s order for assessment year 2008-09 allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 10% against that claim @ 15%. Both parties expressed agreement that the same can be followed even in the impugned assessment year as well. We accordingly accept this third substantive ground for statistical purposes and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a consequential order as in tune with the CIT(A)’s order in succeeding assessment year by adopting judicial consistency. - Decided on favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
|