Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The A.C.I.T Cirle 5 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s Kohli Housing & Development [Now known as Kohli One Housing & Development [P] Ltd] And Vica-Versa

2016 (3) TMI 142 - ITAT DELHI

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- DR has not controverted the fact that the assessee has not received any exempted income during the year under consideration. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt Ltd [2014] (9) TMI 434 [Del] wherein it has been held that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been ear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tilised for these impugned interest free advances, then disallowance can be held as sustainable. When the CIT(A) himself has recorded a finding of fact at Pg 8/9 of the order that amounts advanced to six companies was out of internal accruals/ redemption of Mutual Funds and not out of Borrowed funds, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with his finding in the absence of any material brought on record by the ld. DR to contradict the same. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 4395/De .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he following effective grounds of appeal in its appeal: 1. The order of the learned CIT(Appeals) is erroneous & contrary to facts & law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting disallowance of interest paid to the tune of ₹ 48,49,411 relatable to fund advanced to sister concerns interest fee in the form of loan and interest fee coverable debentures. This is despite the fact that the auditors of the company reported that rate of interes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance under Rule 8D (2) (ii) by taking into consideration the value of average investment at ₹ 55 Lacs as against ₹ 14,64,21,896/- taken by the Assessing Officer. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its cross objection: 1. That on the facts and in Law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)- VIII, New Delhi, erred in upholding that Rule 8D was attracted despite no exempt income earned during .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

earned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi, erred in upholding the disallowance in terms of Rule 8D, clause (iii) of Sub rule (2) at ₹ 7,32,109/. 4. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue being general in nature needs no adjudication. Hence Ground No. 1 of the Revenue stands dismissed. 5. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the Revenue and Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the assessee are taken up together for disposal since they involve similar issue in relation to exempted income. 6. Briefly stated, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ares of group/joint venture company not for purposes of earning dividend. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO without establishing nexus between expenditure incurred and the investment invoked Rule 8D made addition of ₹ 45,26,964/- by (i) incl. Interest ₹ 2,00,63,733/- which has been allowed towards taxable income [no disallowance in view of Bharti Overseas Pvt. Ltd [DHC] (ii) 0.5% of Avg Value of Investment taking the convertible debentures into consideration even though the in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat of the AO. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. We find that the ld. DR has not controverted the fact that the assessee has not received any exempted income during the year under consideration. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd Vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 [Del] and in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt Ltd [2014] (9) TMI 434 [Del] wherein it has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Revenue and allow all the grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections. 9. The only other ground which remains for adjudication is Ground No. 2 of the Revenue in relation to deletion of disallowance of interest. 10. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this issue are that the assessee has nine group companies to whom loans were advanced. During A.Y. 2006-07 assessee gave interest free loans aggregating ₹ 4.75 crore to six group companies out of its owned funds/out of inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT(A) at para 4 Pg No 8/9 of his order. During the year the assessee received refunds aggregating ₹ 32.65 Lacs, from the said six Group companies which had an opening balance on 1.4.2007 of ₹ 4,29,36,926/- and advanced loans aggregating ₹ 27,31,80,000/- to three group companies bearing interest @ 14%. The said funds were advanced out of borrowing bearing interest @ 12% p.a are as under: (a) Vishal Gujral ₹ 1,00,00,000/ (b) U.K.Paints (India) Pvt Ltd ₹ 10,59,00,000 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) Rockman Projects Ltd (ii) Kay Kay Buildtech Pvt Ltd . The interest pertaining to these advances was capitalized. Details of Interest including capitalization is as under : Interest (other than car Loans) ₹ 3,94,54,990/- Less Interest Capitalised ₹ 1,93.91,256/- Interest [other than car Loans] ₹ 2,00,63,734/- Add:-Interest on car loans ₹ 7.34.695/- Total Deduction claimed [P&L] ₹ 2.07.98.429/- AO has, at Para 3.3, Pg 4 of order, wrongly concluded that since no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version