TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not given cogent reason or opinion about the correctness or otherwise of the assessee’s claim. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) it was concluded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessing has not recorded the satisfaction as required in law. However, while going through the order of the Assessing Officer, as it was clearly brought on record by the able Departmental Representative, that the Assessing Officer has duly recorded the satisfaction as required in law. Therefore, in our opinion, the finding recorded by the learned CIT(A) is without any merit and perverse, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 1,97,27,044/-. On query by the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to justify the commercial expediency for advancing these interest free loans. As the assessee failed to justify the commercial expediency, the Assessing Officer, by invoking provision of law, had disallowed the proportionate interest of ₹ 1,18,82,528/- as in the opinion of the Assessing Officer there was no business expediency for advancing these loans. 2.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, filled appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) had allowed the ground of the appeal of Assessee by mentioning that the same trade advances were given by the assessee in earlier years and the commercial expediency was examined by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advances/ advances for commercial expediency and always accepted the returned income of (he appellant company. Even the present Assessing Officer also passed order u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2006-2007 and did not considered any notional interest or disallowed any interest expenses in respect of these business advances/ advances for commercial expediency. However, the same Assessing Officer has treated notional interest income of ₹ 1,48,31,879/ - as business income during the relevant year thereby himself accepting that these advances are business advances/advances for commercial expediency. Whereas business advances are neither subject to notional income nor interest expense is disallowable u/s. 36(l)(ii). In previous years the Revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. The issue no. 1 is thus decided against the Revenue. 3.1. This Tribunal has observed while deciding the issue for assessment year 2010-11 that revenue has been taking similar view in the preceding assessment years and the stand cannot be taken differently now. Based on the similar reasoning, we are inclined to confirm the order passed by Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands dismissed. 2.4 The learned DR relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 2.5 We have heard the rival contention and perused the relevant material available on record. In our opinion, no contrary decision has been cited by the Revenue and further once the issue is squarely covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. From perusal of books of accounts, it has been noticed that during the year under consideration the assessee was in receipt of exempt income. The assessee has claimed it as exempt. Further the assessee has not been able to differentiate that investment made are not from common pool of funds. Keeping in view with the provisions of law and being completely satisfied that substantial part of interest expense has been incurred for the purpose of earning income not includible in the total income, especially due to the complete absence of any justification or direct linkage of interest bearing funds not being used for the purpose of making investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Delhi) 3. Judgement of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT Vs. Jindal Photo Limited in ITA No. 4539/Del/2010 4. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Tin Works Limited in ITA No. 55/2009, dt. 13.052.2009. 5. Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Chemical Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd., in ITA No. 803/2008, dt. 15.07.2008 6. Deciions of Hon ble Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. in ITA No.4063/Del/2006 for AY 2003-04, dt. 16.12.2010 3.4 We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In our view, the grievance of the Revenue in the present case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
