TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year 2007- 08, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench is justified in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A); deleting the addition of Rs. 2,90,652/- made u/s 36 (1)(iii) without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has debited huge amount to profit and loss account on account of interest expenditure. On the other hand he is advancing interest free loan to its subsidiary company? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench is justified in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A); deleting the addition of Rs. 2,77,318/- made u/s 40A(2)(b) as the assessee has infl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act amounting to Rs. 2,77,318/-; iii) Disallowance of bank charges amounting to Rs. 22,41,628/-; and iv) Disallowance of expenses incurred on account of building repair and maintenance amounting to Rs. 3,06,251/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"] who vide order dated 27.4.2012 (Annexure-2) allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Being dissatisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.9.2014 (Annexure-3) dismissed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the book profits as per the profit and loss account and not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y considered the appellant's submission. Appellant has claimed that the advances were given to subsidiary company for business purpose. The appellant has relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 288 ITR 1. It is seen that similar addition had been made in appellant's case during the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the addition was deleted by CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The order of the CIT(A) has been upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT for both the assessment years in ITA No. 696/Chandi/2008 for assessment year 2005-06 and ITA No. 1169/Chandi/2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent parties in the month of August 2006, September 2006, November 2006, January 2007, February 2007 and March 2007. It is seen that there are wide fluctuations of price over the months. It is also seen that on the date when material was purchased from Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Limited the rates of same item purchased from outside parties were matching and comparable. In this regard it is seen from the assessment order that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant had explained that the company had purchased two kinds of waste i.e. cotton comber waste and flat waste from M/s Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. and from outside parties. Appellant had further explained that cotton comber waste is fine waste and is more expensive than flat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ignore the evidence. As submitted by the appellant, date wise and item wise detail of material purchased from related concern and outside independent parties in the month of November 2006, January 2007, February 2007 and March 2007 payment made to M/s Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills for purchase of Comber Waste and Flat Waste was neither excessive nor unreasonable. Keeping in view the above position, the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 2,77,318/- on this account is deleted. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed." 8. The aforesaid findings were upheld by the Tribunal. No illegality or perversity could be demonstrated in the concurrent findings recorded by the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e during the Asstt. Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the addition was deleted by CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) has been upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT for both the Asstt. Years in ITA No. 696/Chandi/ 2008 for Asstt. Year 2005-06 and ITA No. 1169/Chandi/2009 for Asstt. Year 2006-07. Similar addition made in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2008- 09 has also been deleted by me vide my order dated 07.03.2012. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 222,41,628/- on this account is deleted. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed." 10. The Tribunal had affirmed the said deletion. Again, learned counsel for the revenue was not able to displace the reasoning and the findings of fact ....