TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited before due date of filing of return of income and secondly, the deduction of the same was not claimed by the assessee in any other Assessment Year. The assessee is directed to substantiate the same. This ground stands allowed for statistical purposes. Interest income assessment - correct head of income - Business income or Income from Other Sources - HELD THAT:- Interest component include interest on income tax refund for ₹ 155.77 Lacs, which is, undoubtedly, assessable as income from other sources. - the decision of lower authority, to that extent, stand confirmed. The balance interest component as stated to be earned by the assessee from Bank deposits except for assessee s submissions, the aforesaid facts are not for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : Shri Rajesh Agarwal-Ld.AR For the Revenue : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-Ld.DR ORDER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1. Aforesaid cross appeals for Assessment Year [AY] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-20/DCIT-12(2)(1)/IT-10270/16-17 dated 29/11/2017. 2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances on law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred and CIT(A)-20 further erred, in not admitting our claim and not allowing the deduction for E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,36,48,178/-without appreciating the fact that such provisions is to be increased as per explanation 1 of sub-section(2) of section 115JB of the Act? 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2.2 The Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee [AR], at the outset, submitted that most of the issues in cross-appeals are covered by the earlier orders of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for other AYs, the copies of which has been placed on record. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the stand of Ld. AO. In the background, we proceed to dispose-off the issues raised in the cross-appeals. 2.3 Briefly stated the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me after verifying that the aforesaid contributions / payments were deposited before due date of filing of return of income and secondly, the deduction of the same was not claimed by the assessee in any other Assessment Year. The assessee is directed to substantiate the same. This ground stands allowed for statistical purposes. 4.1 In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved by the fact that interest income of ₹ 373.78 Lacs as offered by the assessee under the head Business income was assessed as Income from Other Sources. The said interest comprised-off of Interest on Bank deposits for ₹ 218.01 Lacs and interest on income tax refund for ₹ 155.77 Lacs. Before Ld. AO, the assessee submitted that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the decision of lower authority, to that extent, stand confirmed. 4.4 The balance interest component of ₹ 281.01 Lacs is stated to be earned by the assessee from Bank deposits. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decisions. We find that the above decisions have been rendered on peculiar facts of each case wherein the assessee was able to demonstrate that the surplus funds kept as deposits had some business nexus with those deposits and the dominant objective was to achieve some business purposes. However, in the present case, we find that, except for assessee s submissions, the aforesaid facts are not forthcoming. The Ld. AR has submitted that the fixed deposits were kept to facilitate issuance of ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s expenditure. The entire claim was stated to be fully paid in AY 2015-16. However, not convinced, Ld. AO treating the same as contingent liability, disallowed the same. 6.2 The second ground is similar to ground no.1. It was noted that the assessee debited an amount of ₹ 1.46 Lacs in the Profit Loss Account towards provision for foreign exchange fluctuation on account of closing creditors at year end. However, the same was disallowed by Ld. AO, on similar reasoning. 6.3 Upon further appeal, the Ld. first appellate authority, relying upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in Woodword Governor [312 ITR 254] allowed the same. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
