TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, they remain un-challenged and un-impeached. Since there are no compelling reasons to deviate from this consistent view taken by the Tribunal and Hon ble High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be found fault with. On this premise, we find the grounds of Revenue s appeals as bereft of merits and consequently dismiss the same. Interest free advances to the sister concern - disallowance of interest in respect of the investments made by the assessee in the subsidiaries, on which no interest was charged by the assessee - HELD THAT:- It remains an established fact that for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, as against the interest free funds in the hands of the assessee to the tune o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers dated 31.07.2015 passed by ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 in the cases of Malibu Estate Pvt. Ltd. ( the assessee ), both the Revenue and the assessee preferred these cross appeals. 2. Since the grounds in the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are substantially similar, raising common questions of law and facts, all these appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity. For convenience, we record the attending facts relating to the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Assessment years 2008-09 2009-10: 3. Brief facts, relating to these two assessment years, are that the assessee-company is a developer and was involved in developing a township in Gurgaon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught it fit to add a sum of ₹ 4,27,74,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09 and ₹ 2,79,97,000/- for the assessment year 2009-10 to the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by both the additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) by the impugned orders granted relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by applying POC method. Ld. CIT(A), however, upheld the addition of disallowance of interest in respect of the investments made by the assessee in the subsidiaries, on which no interest was charged by the assessee. 6. Challenging the deletion of addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of application of POC method, the Revenue preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un-impeached. Since there are no compelling reasons to deviate from this consistent view taken by the Tribunal and Hon ble High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be found fault with. On this premise, we find the grounds of Revenue s appeals as bereft of merits and consequently dismiss the same. 10. Now, coming to the grievance of the assessee that the addition based on the assumption that the investment made by the assessee in the subsidiaries should have carried interest and consequently, adding notional interest is bad, the main plank of arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee is that the assessee possesses sufficient own funds, though deposited in the same account where borrowed fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years 2008-09 and 2009-10, as against the interest free funds in the hands of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 104.18 crores and 118.68 coress respectively, the assessee made investments only to the tune of ₹ 37.25 crores and 75.77 crores respectively. It goes without saying that for these two assessment years, the own funds of the assessee are in far excess of the investments made. 12. Now, coming to the decisions cited by the assessee, in CIT vs. Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del) and CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd., 331 ITR 502 (Del), followed in CIT vs. U.K. Paints Ltd. by order dated 19.07.2011 in ITA Nos. 1062/2009, 1826/2010 and batch, in these decision, the Hon ble High Court held that when the assessee had substantial capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit loss account and balance sheet clearly establishes that no dividend income was received and claimed as exemption in that assessment year. Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim (India) P. Ltd., (2014) TOL 1586 DEL IT) and deleted the same. Inasmuch as the ld. CIT(A) followed the binding precedent rendered by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, the same cannot be found fault with. Thus, these grounds of Revenue in appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, challenging the deletion of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are also dismissed. 16. In respect of assessee s appeals for these years, no fresh investment was made by the assessee in subsidiaries and only the investments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
