Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 538 - ITAT PUNEDisallowance of finance charges - addition of interest - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) has held that if there are funds available both interest free and overdrafts and or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that interest free advances would be out of the interest free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. Since in the instant case it is very clear from the details furnished that the interest free advances received from sister concerns during the year at ₹ 2.78 crores far exceeds the interest free amounts advanced to sister concerns at ₹ 1.97 crores, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited (Supra) and in view of various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee no disallowance of proportionate interest is called for - Decided against revenue Addition on account of difference in balance of creditors - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- So far as the amounts appearing in the name of Advance Metal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹ 69,89,667/- is concerned we find the Ld.CIT(A)deleted this amount on the ground that the assessee has already offered the above amount in his application before the Settlement Commission and has paid due taxes on the same. Since the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of perusal of the order of the Settlement Commission on this issue has given a finding that assessee has already declared this amount before the Settlement Commission and paid the taxes and interest thereon, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Ld. Departmental Representative the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is upheld So far as the balance amount of ₹ 41,90,433/- is concerned we find the Ld.CIT(A) deleted an amount of ₹ 40,65,107/- and sustained an amount of ₹ 1,25,326/-. The amount ₹ 40,65,107/-consists of 4 items as per the Table given at para 25 of this order. From the details furnished before the Ld.CIT(A) we find the assessee has given the difference on account of opening balance at ₹ 6,49,223 + ₹ 19,44,849 amounting to ₹ 25,94,072/- whereas the CIT(A) has deleted an amount of ₹ 19,15,371/- on account of opening balance difference. We are unable to understand as to how the CIT(A) has deleted an amount of ₹ 19,15,371/- on account of opening balance difference where the assessee had given the details of opening balance at ₹ 25,94,072/- . Therefore, to this extent the order of Ld.CIT(A) appears to be erroneous for which we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the issue of difference in the opening balance of ₹ 19,15,371/-. So far as other items are concerned we find the Ld.CIT(A) after proper appreciation of facts has deleted the amount of ₹ 9,28,855/-, ₹ 7,99,925/- and ₹ 4,20,956/- on account of the respective heads. In absence of any contrary material brought to our notice against the finding given by the CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity - Decided partly in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
|