TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case, the Tri bunal was right in deleting the addition on account of receivable interest on amounts advanced to the subsidiary company M/s. Pearl Ships Ltd., without interest ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tri bunal was right in holding that the payment of incentives to Dock Labour Board workers had to be allowed as a deduction ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tri bunal was right in holding that inclusion of interest from Sundaram Industries for the amounts advanced by the assessee had to be deleted ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tri bunal was right in deleting the 20 per cent. of the value of the tools that was written off even thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vour of the assessee. Hence, the present appeals by the Revenue raising the questions of law referred to above. 4. The first substantial question of law raised is, whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition on account of receivable interest on amounts advanced to the subsidiary company M/s. Pearl Ships Ltd., without interest ? 5. The assessee-company advanced amounts, free of interest, to its subsidiary company, M/s. Pearl Shipping Ltd. The Assessing Officer found that the subsidiary company made substantial profits during the relevant assessment year and there is no reason for the assessee to advance interest-free loans to its subsidiary company borrowing funds from market inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payments were not fully vouched by the persons stated to have received the amounts. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), referring to the conclusion arrived at by his predecessors for the earlier assessment year, held that nature of the payment is unverifiable and that the amounts expended in the earlier years, when compared to that claimed by the assessee during the assessment year in question, is not unjustifiably different and held the issue in favour of the assessee. The said view was, on appeal, confirmed by the Tribunal following the assessee' s own case for the earlier assessment years. 11. The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal found that there is no breach of law in making payments which were esse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee has a lot of business action with the subsidiaries and carrying on various activities through the subsidiaries, that there is a factual finding that the assessee had its own free reserves and funds used mainly for running expenses, that there was no correlation made by the Revenue that the money borrowed was actually given to its subsidiaries, deleted the addition towards interest. 15. The said decision in the assessee' s own case, favouring the assessee, is applicable to the case on hand in all fours. Hence, this question of law raised needs no consideration. 16. The challenge raised in the fourth question is, whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the 20 per cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made in respect of the interest/clearing and handling receipts, stevedoring receipts, agency fees, service charges that were brought to tax on the basis of accrual system even though the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting ? 21. The assessee-company has been maintaining its books of account on the mercantile system of accounting except for interest, clearing and handling receipts, stevedoring receipts, agency fees and service charges, which were maintained on receipt basis. The Assessing Officer held that the accrual basis of accounting was to be compulsorily followed and accordingly, brought the income under various heads to tax on mercantile basis. 22. The ....