TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year in question, viz., 2000-01, in which year the assessee had claimed the deduction thereof. According to the Assessing Officer (AO), such as deduction was not permissible in this year as the interest had accrued in the earlier years, which should have been claimed in those years only. 2. The CIT (A), however, found otherwise and allowed the deduction, which has been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') as well vide impugned decision dated 07.11.2008. Though as many as five questions are proposed on the aforesaid issue, following two questions, out of these would reflect the nature of challenge which has been laid to the orders of the Tribunal: "1. Whether the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee had issued Post Dated Cheque for Rs. 1 Core for repayment of the said loan. 4. The assessee, however, could not pay the loan amount due to some financial problems and also due to the reasons that negotiations were going on for sale of assets. It requested RCL on 19.02.1996 not to deposit the said cheque. The cheque was not deposited by the RCL. However thereafter, some disputes arose between the parties. According to the assessee, as a consequence of default in repaying the loan, it was deemed that RCL had purchased the shares pledged with it. With a result, the entire loan paid was paid off with interest. The assessee rather claimed that the RCL owned money to group concerns of the assessee. RCL disputed the above and demanded the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which did not seem to have crystallized for the period after 14.10.1997 amounting to Rs. 51,49,180/-, as according to him, which pertained to the earlier years, which had been debited to the Profit & Loss Account of the year in question. To this extent, he disallowed the income and added back the same to the account of the assessee. The computation of the interest upto 14.10.1997 is as under: Period Interest @ 24% P.A. 24.8.1995-30.9.1995 2,49,180 01.10.1995-31.12.1995 6,00,000 01.01.1996-30.03.1996 6,00,000 01.04.1996-30.06.1996 6,00,000 01.07.1996-30.09.1996 6,00,000 01.10.1996-31.12.1996 6,00,000 01.01.1997-31.03.1997 6,00,000 01.04.1997-30.06.1997 6,00,000 01.07.1997-30.09.1997 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber Corpn. v. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 405 (Ori.)]; (ii) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 778 (Raj.) (iii) CIT v. SKG Sugar Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 194 (Pat.). 11. There is no quarrel about the aforesaid proposition. The entire dispute raised on the question, which needs to be addressed, is that whether the AO was right in holding that there was no dispute until 14.10.1997 and the liability to pay the interest had accrued till that date and therefore, interest payable was to claim as deduction during that period, i.e., 24.08.1995 to 14.10.1997, in the relevant assessment years and not in the assessment year in question, i.e., A.Y. 2000-01 or whether the opinion of the CIT (A)/the Tribunal is correct, viz., that there was a disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuarial valuation. ** ** ** We are, therefore, of the view that the assessed is entitled to the deduction of the freight advantage, which it is liable to pass on to CACO, in the year in which this liability has been incurred under the said Scheme and the opinion expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Oriental Motor Car Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable on the facts of this case. In that case, while holding that assessee's liability on account of infringement commission could not be allowed in the year when it was demanded by its principals, the Court had observed that the amount so claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest had become due from 24.08.1995. The reply filed by the respondent discloses that the respondent had controverted the allegations made in the plaint filed by the RCL and had denied its liability. The defence put forth by the assessee was that the RCL had already exercised its right under the Pledge Agreements after the incident of default, pursuant to these rights exercised by the RCL, the companies whose shares were pledged had already transferred those shares in the name of RCL. The RCL had done so by filing another blank transfer on 16.07.1997. The RCL has also alleged that the transfer in their name under cover of their letter dated 14.10.1997 accompanied by a resolution passed by the RCL under Section 372 of the Companies Act. Ac....