TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his order No.CIT(A)XXXII/280/IT/9596 dated 12.3.198 for the Assessment Year 193-94 in assessee's own case. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 30,70,699/- on account of pass book benefit by holding that the sad amount is not assessable in the year of export of goods when the benefit is credited to the pass book, but in the year the benefit receivable is actually availed of by the assessee ignoring the facts and reasons given by the AO in the assessment order relating to the issue. iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that DFRC benefit of ₹ 38,08,012/- accrued to the assessee is not be taxed in this year ignoring the fact and reasons given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the reversal of advance license application amounting to ₹ 37,41,869/ was not claimed as deduction in the earlier year the reversal of t the same cannot be taxed as income. 2 Ground nos 1, 3 & 4 regarding taxability of advance license benefit rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the learned CIT DR based on the order of the Special Bench. 6 For the aforesaid reasons we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) in respect of the taxability of the advance licence benefits receivable by the assessee. 7 As regards the second ground, the same is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court cited above. Even in the earlier orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1996- 97, it has been held that the DEPB is not assessable in the year of export of goods when the benefit is credited to the passbook, but it is assessable in the year when the benefit receivable is actually availed of by the assessee. This is in the order dated 12th January 2009, which is a combined order for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Thus the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee both by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra) and by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. We therefore affirm the decision of the CIT(A) in respect of this ground also. 4 Since the CIT(A) has followed the order of this Tribunal; therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in view of the facts that this i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the DCIT in disallowing a sum of ₹ 20,3,000/- out of interest paid attributable to loan to a subsidiary. iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the DCIT in disallowing a sum of ₹ 2,24,000/- out of interest paid attributable to other loans. iv) Without prejudice to the grounds of appeal no.s 2 & 3, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the DCIT in considering the rate of interest on borrowings @ 14% for making the aforesaid disallowance out of interest paid. v) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the DCIT in rejecting the claim for deduction of an amount of ₹ 7681/- being expenditure on fines and penalties. vi) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim for deduction in respect of wealth tax paid amounting to ₹ 1,23,651/-. vii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the DCIT in including in the total income deferred sales tax liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e action of the Assessing Officer. 13 Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that no specific borrowings were made for advancing the said loans. The said loans were made from assessee's own funds or at the mixed funds. The ld AR of the assessee has accordingly pleaded that the assessee is eligible for deduction towards interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I T Act. The loans granted to the subsidiary are out of commercial expediency. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1(SC). He has also pointed out that identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1996-97 and 1997-98. 13.1 The ld DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when the identical issue has been considered and remanded to the records of the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal, then, the same may be set aside to the records of the Assessing Officer. 14 We have considered the rival contention and the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1996-97 and 97-98 in the case of the assessee has co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round no.2 and the same has been remanded by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1996-97 & 97-98. 18 We have considered the rival contention and perused the relevant material on record. In view of the order of the Tribunal, as reproduced in the foregoing paragraph, this issue is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms and direction given by the Tribunal. 19 Ground no.4 regarding application of rate of interest for disallowance made by the lower authorities. 20 This ground is also an alternative ground to the ground no.2 and 3 of the assessee. The ground nos 2 & 3 have already been remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. Therefore, this ground is consequential and accordingly, the same is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. 21 Ground no.5 regarding disallowance of expenditure on fines and penalties. 22 The ld AR of the assessee has stated that this ground is not pressed and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. The ld DR has no objection, if the ground is dismissed being not pressed. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground as not pressed. 23 Ground no.6 regarding de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Sulzer India Ltd vs JCIT reported in 6 ITR 604(Trib)(SB)(Mum). 26.1 On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that when the assessee has not claimed the non taxability of this benefit towards written back of the deferred sales tax liability in the return of income then the assessee admitted the benefit of cessation of liability. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 27 We have considered the rival contention and perused the relevant material on record. We find that this issue was not before the Assessing Officer because the assessee did not claim this amount of ₹ 2,70,37,113/- written back to the P&L account on account of outstanding deferred sales tax liability. The assessee has raised this issue for the first time before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has decided this issue against the assessee by following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Schenectady Specialities Asia Pvt Ltd in ITA Nos.7098 and 7099/Mum/2005 vide order dated 6.1.2009. Thus, the CIT(A) without discussing the facts of the issue and the nature of the be benefit or cessation of liability to the assessee decided the issue purely on legal basis. The assessee has not produced any rec....