TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2015 - D. Manmohan, VP And N. K. Billaiya, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S D Srivastava For the Respondent : Shri Salil Kapoor ORDER Per N. K. Billaiya, AM. This is an appeal by the Revenue preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-14, Mumbai dt. 20.4.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has raised as many as 7 grounds of appeal. However, the Ld. Departmental Representative Shri S.D. Srivastava, at the very outset, stated that he will put forth his argument only in respect of ground No. 7 which relates to the deletion of the addition of ₹ 54.97 lakhs made u/s. 14A of the Act. In respect of other 6 grounds of appeal, the Ld. DR stated that the Revenue has no ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 80IB of the Act. Similarly, there cannot be any question of reallocation of depreciation of a particular unit to other units. In respect of selling and administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee's similar contention and agreed with the AO that selling and administrative expenses have to be allocated in the proportion of sales turnover. Except for the allocation of selling and administrative expenses on the basis of turnover, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire reallocation of expenses made by the AO in respect of interest, finance charges and depreciation. 4. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. As mentioned elsewhere, the Ld. DR has fairly conceded that the Revenue has no case, we therefore decline to interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er years. The Ld. CIT(A) finally deleted the disallowance made by the AO holding that once the subsidy has been taxed in accrual basis, the same cannot be taxed on receipt. 8.1. As mentioned elsewhere, the DR could not bring anything in support of the assessment order. We, therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 4.2 is accordingly dismissed. 9. Ground No. 5 relates to the deletion of the addition of interest payment of ₹ 1,92,703/- made u/s. 43B of the Act. 9.1. This issue has been discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) at para-6 of his order where he has considered ground No. 4 of the appeal before him and at para 6.3, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no such disallowance menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de, it is not uncommon for conversion of a trade debt into a loan. It was explained that the assessee had purchased material from various suppliers who in turn had bought the same material from M/s. Hikal Pro Estate Pvt. Ltd. On the request of these trade creditors, the assessee agreed to pay the outstanding amounts to M/s. Hikal Pro Estate Pvt. Ltd. which transaction has been confirmed by the trade creditors as well as the loan creditors. 12.1. After considering the facts and the submissions and strongly drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exportds (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 13. Before us, the Ld. DR could not bring anything in support of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the accounts of the assessee. At para-10.7 of his order, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no expenditure which can be said to be directly relating to income which does not form part of total income. There is also no interest expenditure which can be said to be proportionately incurred for earning the dividend income. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee is directly attributable to the fixed assets for which the term loan has been taken. After making these observations, the Ld. CIT(A) stated that certain expenditures have to be allocated in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 Vs DCIT and restric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
