TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT] Applying the dictum as laid in Alidhara Taxspin Engineers (supra), we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order - Decided against revenue. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 818, 819, 820 of 2019, R/TAX APPEAL NO. 874, 875 of 2019, R/TAX APPEAL NO. 788, 798, 805 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2020 - HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Mrs Kalpanak Raval for the Appellant ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ) 1. Since the questions of law as proposed by the Revenue in all the captioned tax appeals are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Tax Appeal No.818 of 2019 is treated as the lead appeal. 3. This tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act, 1961 ) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat in the ITA No.193/Srt/2017 for the A.Y.2011-12. 4. The Revenue has proposed the following questions as the subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2011-12 ₹ 1,37,57,13,846/- A.Y.2012-13 ₹ 1,47,67,42,521/- A.Y.2013-14 ₹ 41,88,69,352/- A.Y.2014-15 ₹ 56,96,25,581/- 6. The Assessee, being dissatisfied with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), Surat. The CIT ((A), Surat allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A), while allowing the appeal preferred by the Assessee, held as under; 6.1.1. l have considered the assessment order as well as the submissions of the appellant. The Grounds of appeal- Ground No. 2 to 5 pertains to making additions and disallowances on the grounds other than the grounds/reasons on which the reopening was made and since no additions were made based upon the reasons recorded, the entire reassessment proceedings are rendered invalid and needs to be quashed and resorting to provisions of section 80(IA)(10) r.w.s. 10AA(9) and thrusting interest and remuneration paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship deed either specifies the amount of remuneration payable to each individual working partner or lays down the manner of quantifying such remuneration. The clause of the Partnership Deed specifically restricts payment of Interest to Partners on their Capital as well as Remuneration to Partners. This is the main reason why the appellant has not claimed both expenses against the Business Income shown in Income Tax Return. 6.1.3. The AO has mainly relied in the case of Meridian Impex (supra) to disallow interest on capital partner remuneration but the facts in this case of Meridian Impex (supra) was different as there was the specific clause regarding the payment interest on capital and partners remuneration in the original partnership Deed submitted at the time of scrutiny assessment and the supplementary deed was made amending the clause regarding non-payment of interest on capital an remuneration to partners. This supplementary deed was not submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings. In the instant case, the Partnership deed itself does not have any clause pertaining to payment of interest and remuneration ton the partners. 6.1.4. This iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the appellant had filed objections of the reopening which was disposed of by the AO vide his letter dated 11.03.2016. Since, the addition made by the AO has already been deleted while adjudicating ground no 2 to 5 above from para 6.1.1 to 6.1.5, therefore this ground become infructuous and is not being adjudicated. 6.3.1. The Grounds of appeal- Ground No. 6 pertains to learned AO is not justified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as no inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished by your appellant. This ground is premature at this stage. 7. The Revenue, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT (A), went in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue, held as under; ''1 Considering the totality of facts and in the light of the above decision of Tribunal in the case of Ruta Jewels (supra). We find that in the present case, the assessee firm has not charged any interest and remuneration as per partnership deed does not prescribed so, therefore, the assessee firm cannot be compelled to charge interest or remuneration. Therefore, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. As rightly observed by the learned tribunal, mere incorporation of interest on the partners capital and remuneration does not signify that the same are mandatory in nature. We concur with the view taken by the learned tribunal. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal. No substantial questions of law arise in the present Tax Appeal. The present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9. This Court had the occasion to consider Alidhara Taxspin Engineers (supra) while deciding a batch of appeals being Tax Appeal Nos.165 of 2019 to Tax Appeal Nos. 168 of 2019, decided on 24th June, 2019. 10. Applying the dictum as laid in Alidhara Taxspin Engineers (supra), we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. In such circumstances, referred to above, in our opinion, none of the questions, as proposed, could be termed as the substantial questions of law involved in the present tax appeals. 11. In the result, all the tax appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
