2017 (11) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,30,83,067/- made on account of interest accrued on sticky loans and advances, ignoring the fact that the assessee company follows the mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, all the incomes are mandatorily required to be included in the its total income on accrual basis. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing." 3. The brief facts of the case are that Assessee filed return of income declaring NIL income after claiming set off of losses and income u/s. 115JB at Rs. 92,77,50,120/- on 28.11.2011. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 28.3.2013 declaring NIL income after claiming set of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rms prescribed by the RBI. The assessee has submitted detailed written submissions and taken support of various judicial precedents in this respect which have been considered. Additionally, the assessee also brought to my notice the judgment of Delhi ITAT passed on October 31,2012 for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05 in the assessee's own case wherein, full relief on the issue of interest on sticky loans has been granted to the assessee. However, the department has preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court the matter is pending. Hence, claim of the assessee in this regard cannot be accepted. As per Companies Act, 1956, Section 209 w.e.f. 15.06.1988 makes it obligatory for all companies to maintain their accounts on accrual basis and acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the impugned order. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case in A.Y.2000-01, 2003-04 and 2004-05. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observation of the ITAT in A.Y.2001-02 in Appeal No. 3476 is reproduced as under: "The assessee had not recognized the interest i....