TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng grounds of appeal. "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of amount payable to M/s Evershed amounting to Rs. 93,819/- when the assessee is following cash system of accounting. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,08,67,588/- on account of proportionate interest disallowed out of total interest expenses of Rs. 2,10,35,698/- claimed by the assessee ignoring the fact that the loans availed by the assessee were utilized in giving interest free loans and advances to related parties and others. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of proportionate interest out of total interest expenses since the assessee could not furnish necessary documentary evidence the course of assessment proceedings w.r.t. loans and advances inspite of numerous opportunities given to him by the AO. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of London rates and taxes to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on the issue in question. The issue is also covered by the decision of ITAT dated 11-1- 2008, in asessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 rendered in ITA no.3377/Del/2006, wherein in para 3, the Tribunal deleted the addition by observing as under: "We have considered the facts of the case and submissions available before us. The facts are that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 1 ,22,04,9601- as advances from clients, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,65,0001- was adjusted towards income for the services rendered in this year. . It was pointed out that the balance amount was adjusted as income in subsequent year to which there is no rebuttal from the revenue. In view of this fact, we tend to agree with the argument of the assessee taken before the lower authorities that bringing to tax the impugned amount in this' year would amount to double taxation of the same income in different years. We also find that various cases cited by the learned OR are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra), the question was about the deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, debited in the books in one year. The court held that since the be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 2,10,35,698/-. The AO required the assessee to submit details of loans and advances and to explain the source of such loans and advances with proper documentary evidence. However, since no details were furnished, the AO required the assessee to explain as to why proportionate interest expenditure be not disallowed. He observed that there was increase in loan and interest charges and simultaneously there was increase in interest free advance and investment in Little & Co., as under: As on 31-03-2009 As on 31-03-2008 Advances 3,24,54,341 1,62,95,144 Little & Co. 5,81,08,891 4,56,08,891 Total 9,05,63,232 6,19,04,035 As on 31-03-2009 As on 31-03-2008 Loan 10,62,04,547 8,36,99,113 Interest 2,10,35,698 1,34,29,295 11. From the above chart, the AO pointed out that assessee had invested heavily in the Little & Co. which was a related party. Considering various case laws, the AO computed the disallowable interest @ 12% on advance of Rs. 9,05,63,232/-, which aggregated to Rs. 1,08,67,588/-. 12. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee reiterated that the assessee had not made advance as loan to M/s Little & Co., but the same was in the form of advance to enter into partners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot made in the year under consideration but had been continuing since 19-5- 2006. The partnership deed is contained at page 1 of the PB, which was also filed before ld. CIT(A). The other document which was filed before ld. CIT(A) was the copy of transfer petition (C. No. 158/2012 and Transfer petition (C. no. 53/2012) vide order dated 8-2-2012. These documents were filed only to demonstrate that the compensation received as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was included in assessee's income in AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as per the date of receipt of compensation. This petition only further support's assessee's contention regarding investment in M/s Little & Co. 17. Admittedly, the investment made by assessee in M/s Little & Co., Mumbai was on account of professional considerations inasmuch as the assessee had acquired 45% share in profit & loss account of the firm M/s Little & Co., Mumbai. Therefore, the amount outstanding against the said firm could not be treated as interest free loan calling for any disallowance of interest on proportionate basis. It was pure and simple professional arrangement between two firms and, therefore, the amount outstanding against M/s. Little & Co. ....