TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,556/- (@2% of dividend income) and not applying Ruled 8D of the Income Tax Rules which is mandatory from A.Y. 2008-09. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by ignoring the ratio decided in case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. DCIT (2010) 234 (Bom.). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of Director's Travelling without considering whether any identifiable benefit accrued to the business. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant from time to time as per the Bank Statements produced. Only the interest of Rs. 2,96,731/- was paid on funds utilized for making investments on which exempted income was receivable (as admitted by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings) and hence the same is treated as expense attributable to exempt income. In respect of investments of Rs. 6,07,775,000/- made in subsidiary companies as per documents produced before me, they are attributable to commercial expediency, because as per submission made by the appellant, it had to form Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) in order to obtain contracts from the NHAI and the SPVs so formed engaged the appellant company as contract to execute the works awarded to them (i.e. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. C.I.T. in ITA NBo. 687/2009 wherein vide order dated 18.11.2011 the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has expounded that determination of the amount of expenditure in relation to exempt income under Rule 8D would only come into play when the Assessing Officer rejects the claim of the assessee in this regard. It is further expounded that condition precedent for the Assessing Officer to himself determine the amount of expenditure is that he must record his dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee or with the correctness of the claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred. It is only when this condition precedent is satisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sufficient. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), hence, we uphold the same. 7. Apropos next issue Director's Travelling Assessing Officer on this issue noted that assessee has claimed Director's Travelling of Rs. 21,24,882/-. Assessing Officer observed that from the examination of the details it was observed that for following visits made no correspondence or material has been submitted to the support the expenditure is a business expense. S.No. Visits Expenditure incurred 1. Mr. K.S. Bakshi, Managing Director Visited London/USA during May/June, 2007 Rs.2,95,292/- 2. Mr. K.S. Bakshi, Managing Director Visited USA in June, 2007. Rs. 41,748/- T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ages and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and the same was deleted. 10. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that assessee has given sufficient details regarding the foreign travel expenditure. The disallowance in this regard cannot be sustained. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and uphold the same. 12. Apropos next issue disallowance on account of VAT On this issue Assessing Officer noted as per the Tax Audit Report VAT liability of Rs.1,51,200/- has not been paid by the assesse company stating that there is refund due to the assessee as per the legal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks property in goods has been transferred only once i.e. at the time of execution of works at the hands of sub-contractor i.e. M/s Simplex Infrastructure, hence if the sub-contractor has discharged his tax liability in respect of work executed, no tax was payable by the main contractor i.e. assessee company. - This is to inform you that stand of assessee has been considered and order dated 31.3.2010 u/s. 15(3) of the HVAT has been issued by Excise and Taxation Officer cum Assessing Authority, Gurgaon (East). As per the assessment order issued there was refund due to assessee instead of VAT payable. - Keeping in view above facts, the disallowance of Rs. 1,51,200/- on account of VAT liability outstanding is erroneous and needs to be deleted....