TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the assessee came in appeal in I.T.A.No.1159/Mds/2012 challenging the action of the CIT(A) in restricting the assessee's claim of relief u/s 90 of the Act of Rs. 224,67,411/- to the extent of tax payable in India on net income of Rs. 516,93,732/- i.e difference between interest earned from M/s AHPL and interest paid on borrowings made for advancing the loans to M/s AHPL. The Tribunal while adjudicating the grounds, placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bank of Baroda vs CIT in I.T.A.No.2927/Mds/2011 dated 25.7.2014 wherein the Tribunal has given a direction that the income of the branches of the assessee shall also taxable in India i.e it wold be included in the return of income filed by the assessee in In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the Revenue came in appeal in I.T.A.No.1343/Mds/2012 with regard to deletion of addition towards loss on foreign exchange derivatives transaction. While disposing of this ground, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in the light of the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs Asvini Fisheries P. Ltd. in I.T.A.No.2246/Mds/2014 dated 18.12.2015. According to the ld. AR, all the transactions entered into by the assessee are with a view to hedge against losses arising from foreign exchange fluctuations in the course of business transactions. As such, reliance placed by the Tribunal in the case of Araska Diamond P. Ltd vs ACIT, 152 ITD 203, has no application. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enses u/s 35D of the Act. 9. The ld. AR submitted that the Revenue came before the Tribunal challenging that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 35D in respect of total expenditure incurred towards share issue. The Tribunal while disposing of this ground, followed its order for assessment year 2006-07 in I.T.A.No. 1382/Mds/2010 dated 15.7.2011 instead of the latest order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A.No. 90/Mds/2012 dated 26.6.2015. According to the ld. DR, the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 is squarely applicable to the issue in dispute for the assessment year 2008-09. As the Tribunal has given a categorical finding in para 11 while confirming the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1382/Mds/2010 for assessment year 2006-07. We reproduce para 10.2 of the CIT(A)'s order as under: 10.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submission of the Id. AR. I have also gone through the decisions relied on by the AO and AR. Similar issue had come up for consideration in appellant's own case for A.Y. 2006-07. After considering the facts and rival submissions, it was held in ITA No.573/08**09/A.1I1 dated 23.06.2010 for A.Y. 2006- 07 that the expenditure on issue of shares is not deductible because it is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company. The disallowance of the AO was sustained. However, since the appellant is engage in the business of hiring rigs as well as the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication was also issued on 26.06.2006. Hence, the appellant is eligible for deduction in respect of the Rig Aban VII which is complete in all respects. The appellant had also been awarded a contract to drill in the East Coast of India by Hindustan Oil Exploration Ltd. Accordingly, the appellant got the rig moving from Texas Shipyard towards India. The fact that it was sold subsequently to a different company would not blot out the factum of completion of extension of the industrial undertaking of the appellant. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 35D in respect of the total expenditure incurred towards share issue. In the result, the ground to allow the entire issue is dis....