TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties on this ground. It is just a general ground of appeal and does not call for recording of any specific finding. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 2. In ground NO.2 and 2.1, revenue has pleaded that Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting he addition of Rs. 13,52,000 made under sec. 92CA(i) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee during the year was engaged in the business of solar photo-voltaic wafers, cells, modules and systems etc. It has filed its return of income on 30th October, 2002 declaring loss of Rs. 7,47,14,276. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under sec. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee. On an analysis of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and other government agencies. The assessee has actually drawn a sum of US $ at 1.295 millions. The assessee had paid interest @ 8.5%. Learned TPO has selected five comparables and collected their datas in order to compare the rates which read as under: Sl.No. Name of Company Amt. Borrowed US$ million Rate of interest (%over LIBOR) 1. Haldia Petrochemicals 50 2.25 2. HPL Cogeneration Ltd. 20 2.75 3. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. NA 1.20 4. Reliance Industries Ltd. 125 1.00 5. Shipping Corporation of India 85 1.64 Arithmetic mean 1.64 5. The assessee pointed out that whenever any institution gave loan to any concern then it used to take into consideration money factors, namely, capacity of a borrower to repa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has considered the average LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate) between the period of April 2001 to March 2002 plus arithmetic mean of the interest rate paid by the comparables in addition to LIBOR. Learned TPO has committed two errors. He considered the arithmetic mean of LIBOR between April 2001 to March 2002. The assessee entered into an agreement for the loan on 25.12.2000. What was the rate of LIBOR at that particular time has not been considered. Similarly, we concur with the finding of the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the comparables selected by the learned TPO are not comparables with the assessee in terms of their size quantitatively. Learned TPO also not compared the terms and conditions enumerated in the assessee's agreement for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility has not ceased, no addition can be made. Learned CIT(Appeals) has considered this aspect and we do not see any reason to interfere in his order. With regard to the two other creditors, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the addition on the ground that these amounts have been written off by the assessee in the subsequent years and offered for tax. Assessing Officer has made the addition of these amounts in the present years on the ground that assessee failed to file the confirmation from these two entities. The case of the assessee was that a dispute was pending between the assessee and these parties and it was not possible for it to ask for a confirmation. The assessee has not written off these amounts in its books of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebited in the P & L account. The assessee failed to produce complete books of account with supporting vouchers which has been discussed in details vide para 3 above the genuineness of the expenses incurred, therefore, could not verified. I, therefore, disallow 10% of the expenses incurred being not verifiable. ADDITION: Rs. 24,22,167/-" 14. Apart from this addition, learned Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of low g.p. Learned First Appellate Authority has considered both these issues together and recorded a finding that 17 opportunities were given to the assessee but it failed to submit the requisite details, thus under the compelling circumstances, Assessing Officer has made ad hoc disallowance out of the expenses claime....