TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. The contention of the assesse that it had interest free funds and that the same were advanced to a sister concern, subsidiaries etc. requires factual verification. The decision of the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Courts on this matter have to be followed by the Assessing Officer. AO should specifically consider the assessee’s claim of expenditure on Payment of bill collection charges, Cheque clearance/discounting charges, Letter of credit against supplies, Interest on packing credit loan, dealers and suppliers hundi, overdue interest on raw material suppliers, sales documents, interest paid on fixed deposits and intercorporate deposits, guarantee commission, Interest paid on sales tax, Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and loss account. Under these circumstances, we find that this ground is mis-conceived. In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 228/Kol/2015 And I.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2018 - Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member And Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Shri A.K. Gupta, FCA, appeared For The Revenue : Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DR appearing ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- These are cross-appeals directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ld. CIT (A) ), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act ), dt. 27/01/2015. 2. The assessee is a company and is a memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 has held that the amendment to the first proviso and the omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 to be retrospective. It has been held by the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007] 313 ITR (St.) 1 (FRSC) that the amount of employees' provident fund deposited before the due date cannot be disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 considered under section 2(24)(x) along with section 36(1) and allowed deduction in respect of the employees' share which was paid before the due date as per section 139(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and intercorporate deposits ( i) guarantee commission ( j) Interest paid on sales tax, Central Excise etc. 6.1.1. It is also alleged that the disallowance was more than the actual payment of interest due to a typographical error. The revenue is aggrieve as the ld. CIT(A), chose to follow the decision of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The fact is that this order of the Tribunal was set aside by the Hon ble High Court for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. 7. In our view, the entire issue should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. The contention of the assesse that it had interest free funds and that the same were advanced to a sister concern, subsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that sufficient opportunity had not been given by the Assessing Officer. The ld. First Appellate Authority had called for the remand report as the assesse had furnished copies of certain documents and made submissions on the issue. After considering these submissions as well as the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) has granted part relief. He deleted the following disallowance 1) discount on sales, 2) LIC Premium in lieu of EDLIS, 3) Excise duty paid, 4) interest paid, 5) raw material consumed, 6)processing charges etc. The assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) by oversight, confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 15,546,502/-, though the ld. DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata, has opined that this expenditure is allowable o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Oil Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. CIT(2010) 322 ITR 180 (SC) . In the result, we uphold this finding of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground raised by the revenue. 14. Ground No. 3, is against the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of post production interest on deferred credits. 14.1. The Assessing Officer s contention is that the interest does not relate to the current year and neither the same had got crystalized in the Assessment Year. The assessee submits that he has not claimed this amount as a deduction in his return nor deducted the same to the profit and loss account. Under these circumstances, we find that this ground is mis-conceived. In the result, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
