TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion - Held that:- Respectfully following the earlier Tribunal order in assessee’s own case, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. addition on account of valuation of closing stock - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Respectfully following the earlier Tribunal order in assessee’s own case, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Disallowance of expenses incurred on transmission line and contribution paid to UPPCL - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The finding given by learned CIT(A) is confirmed as that the assessee has right to use the power line for transmitting power generated in its factory to UPPCL but it would not enjoy ownership right on the asset. He has also given a finding that the ownership on the asset would be with UPPCL in future. He has also given a finding that the assessee acquired right to make use of the asset for facilitating efficient conduct of its business and making it more profitable but without getting any advantage of enduring benefit to itself and, therefore, the assessee did not acquire any asset. On the basis of these findings, it was held by learned CIT(A) that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered in the case of Dhanuka and Sons Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 339 ITR 319 (Cal). He also placed reliance on the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of R G P Moulds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT in I.T.A. No.555/Lkw/2011 dated 27th August, 2013. He submitted a copy of the Tribunal decision and drawn our attention to Para 8 of the Tribunal order and pointed out that as per this Tribunal order, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance to the extent of % of the assets held as per mandate of Rule 8D. 4. As against this, learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, gone through the orders of the authorities below and the judgments cited by learned D.R. of the Revenue. On page No. 11 of his order, this finding is given by learned CIT(A) that the investment was made in 1993 in subsidiaries for acquiring their shares and such investment was made out of own funds of the assessee. He has also given finding that existing term loans on which interest was paid during the year under consideration were received for specific purposes after 1993 and the cash credit account was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of assessee not charging interest on interest bearing funds given as loans and advances to its sister concerns/subsidiaries. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in law and on fact in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,50,62,605/- made by the A.O. as disallowance of interest claimed u/s 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to explain the specific business purpose for which the loans and advances were given to its sister concerns/ subsidiaries without charging interest from them. 7. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 2003-04, 2004-05 2005- 06 in I.T.A. No.1187, 1188 1189/Del/2009 dated 11th Sept. 2009. He further submitted that the copy of the Tribunal order is available in the paper book on pages 104 to 113. In particular, our attention was drawn to Para 11 of this Tribunal order. 8. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough the order of the Tribunal cited by learned A.R. of the assessee. Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by learned D.R. of the Revenue, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue because the same is in line with the earlier Tribunal order. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 12. Ground No. 7 of the appeal is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in law and on fact in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 8,48,62,924/- made by the A.O. on account of expenses incurred on transmission line and contribution paid to UPPCL, without appreciating the fact that these expenses were in the nature of capital expenditure and not in the nature of revenue expenditure., hence rightly disallowed by the A.O. as they were not deductible as per provision of section 37(1) of the l.T. Act. 1961. 13. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 14. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the disallowance was made by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
