TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had sufficient interest free funds available to acquire the equity shares for subsidiary companies and it cannot be held that they were acquired out of interest bearing funds borrowed - revenue’s appeal is dismissed. - ITA No. 4253/Del/10 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2012 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR JJ. Appellant by : Mrs. Anusha Khurana Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Anil Bhalla CA O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M:: This is revenue s appeal against CIT(A) s order dated 30-06- 2010, relating to A.Y. 2002-03. 2. Following grounds are raised: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, perverse, illegal and against the provisions of law which is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to following companies. Bharti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 22,22,565/- Bharti Teletech Limited Rs. 11,96,712/- Bank Charges Rs. 9,746/- Rs. 34,29,023/- 4.1. It was explained before the authorities below that the amount of Rs. 22,22,565/- was paid to Bharti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. on the opening balance. Assessee advanced an amount of Rs. 4 crores to its subsidiary Bharti Televentures Ltd. ( BTVL ), out of Rs. 4 crores received from another subsidiary Bharti Teletech Ltd. The amount of advance being for business purposes was squarely covered by the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). It was pleaded that no amount for purchase of equity sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Rs. 792.02 crores out of which Rs. 57.64 crores is given to sister concern. 4) In any case amount advanced to subsidiary was in the course of purpose of business is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SA Builders 288 ITR 1. 3.2. Based on the above and the various case laws referred to by the appellant I am inclined to accept the argument of the appellant and as such the disallowance of Rs. 34,29,023/- made by the AO is deleted. 4.2. Assessee relied on the following case laws: - CIT Vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del.) - CIT Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. 274 ITR 354 (All) - Britannia 280 ITR 525. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the relevant material available on record. Assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
