TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest u/s 244A on Income-tax refund for assessment year 2012-2013 amounting to ₹ 1,53,504 on 08,07.2013. Since the assessee had received a sum of ₹ 1,53,504 during the relevant assessment year, the same has to be brought to tax as income from other sources, in view of the judicial pronouncements cited by the Assessing Officer at para 8.1 of the impugned assessment order. Therefore, the ground relating to interest income received on refund u/s 244A of the I.T.Act whether it can be taxed in the relevant assessment year, is rejected. Allowable expenditure of interest u/s 201(1A) - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industry v. CIT [ 1998 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] had held that interest for lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance u/s 80IA (Asst.Years 2013-2014 2015-2016) 3. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act to the extent of ₹ 3,11,713 and ₹ 37,82,522 for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016, respectively. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer to make the disallowance was that the assessee had incurred expenditure like managerial remuneration, audit fee, staff welfare expenses, legal and professional expenses, etc. and the same have to be apportioned between 80IA units and non 80IA units. 3.1 Aggrieved by the restriction of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the authority below ought to have appreciated that separate books of account were maintained for each of the windmills and the assessee has filed profit and loss account of each windmill along with Form No.10CCB. Therefore, it was stated that no common administrative expenses on proportionate basis is to be disallowed with regard to deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act. Further, the learned AR submitted that the primary reason for the first appellate authority to confirm the view of the A.O. was that identical issue for assessment year 2012-2013, the CIT(A) had decided against the assessee and no appeal was preferred to ITAT. This observation of the CIT(A), according to the learned AR, is factually incorrect, since the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are allowed for statistical purposes. Interest u/s 244A (Asst.Year 2014-2015) 4. The Assessing Officer had added to the total income interest received on refund u/s 244A of the I.T.Act. The relevant observation of the A.O. reads as follow:- 8. The Income Tax Department had issued interest u/ s 244A on Income-tax refunds to the assessee company for the A.Y.2010-11 and A.Y. 2012-13 amounting to Rs.l,53,504 and ₹ 1,00,68,264 respectively and during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the details that, ₹ 1,00,68,264 was duly accounted in the books as other income. However, with regard to interest relating to A.Y. 2010- 11, the assessee st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived any requisite order from the Assessing Officer in relation to the interest amount of ₹ 1,53,504 u/s 244A of the I.T.Act. It was submitted that in absence of such incidents of refund, the assessee has not been able to recognize the interest income of ₹ 1,53,504 in the relevant assessment year. 4.3 The learned Departmental Representative submitted that admittedly the refund was received during the relevant assessment year, hence, the Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the interest income under the head `income from other sources during the relevant assessment year. 4.4 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the Income Tax Department had issued interest u/s 244A on Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, which is due to the Government, was unlawfully withheld and it is for this reason that the interest under section 201(lA) was charged on the belated payment. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in Iyer and Sons (P.) Ltd. V. Income-Tax Officer (1982) 1 ITD 502. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industry v CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 held that interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible. Similar decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Chennai Properties Investments Ltd 239 ITR 435. Therefore, ₹ 24,644 is added back to the total income of the assessee. 5.1 The view taken by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
