AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13-14 in ITA No. 556/Bang/2018 are as under. "1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the assessee year after year has posted meager income from business and claimed large amounts as expenses, even though there is no business activity being carried out by the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has ignored the fact that the assessee has not satisfied conditions laid out u/s 37(1) of the IT Act to claim certain amount as business expenses. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has relied on the CIT (Appeals)-111, Bengaluru order for A.Y.2008-09 without appreciating the facts and circumstances for A.Y.2013-14 and A.Y.2008-OY are entirely different. 5. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01, has wrongly ordered for the proportionate disallowance on the interest debited (Rs.6,25,35,687) to the P&L account of the appellant with respect to the amounts advanced to the sister concerns/related parties. 5. The authorities below ought to have considered that the funds advanced to the sister concerns/related parties are ONLY for the purpose of the business of the appellant being in common Real Estate business. 6. The authorities below without considering the above facts on record WRONGLY concluded to disallow a pro-rata interest on the amount advanced which is now prayed by the appellant for allowing as deduction. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged and presented at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered." 5. Brief facts are that the AO has noted in the assessment order for Assessment Year 2013-14 that the assessee firm derives income on account of rental income amounting to Rs. 698.40 Lakhs in addition to commission income of Rs. 5,11,008/- and income from other sources of Rs. 4,12,158/-. Thereafter the AO has reproduced the P&L account of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the relevant paras of the order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2008-09 being paras 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 which has been reproduced by CIT(A) in the order for Assessment Year 2013-14 on pages 9 and 10 of its order. The same are as under. "4.1.3 On an appraisal of the facts of the case, I am of the view that of the AO has not made out a strong case for holding that the appellant is not involved in business of the appellant as 'Real Estate' but at the same time not controverted the appellant's contention that it is engaged in the business of property development and sale. It had raised large loans the bank and developed a constructed are of 2,00,000 sq. ft. of commercial space though there was no sale during the year since there was a dispute with the development partner, M/s. IBC Knowledge Park. It is pertinent to note that with respect to this property, the appellant has also claimed legal expenses arid security charges, which were disallowed by the AO on the ground that though the constructed area appeared on the balance sheet, no income other than rental income was shown in the profit and loss account. It is the appellant's contention that there was a genuine d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I have directed the AO to allow the expenses on the premium payments paid u/s 37(1). I, therefore, direct the AO to allow this expenditure and the ground of appeal succeeds." 6. After reproducing these two paras from the order of CIT (A) in Assessment Year 2008-09, the CIT (A) has decided the issue in Assessment Year 2013- 14 also in favour of the assessee on this basis that in Assessment Year 2009-10 also, similar view was taken and in the present year also, the facts are same. 7. Similarly in Assessment Year 2014-15, the AO made similar disallowance of business expenses to the extent of Rs. 7,61,60,088/- with the same reasoning and in this year also, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A). In Assessment Year 2014-15, the ld. CIT(A) has held that in this year also, the business expenses should be allowed but he further noted on the penultimate page of his order for Assessment Year 2014-15 that it is seen from the balance sheet of the assessee that substantial amounts of borrowed money was advanced to the sister concerns / related parties, viz., Century Carbel - Rs. 20.12 Crores, Century Astral - Rs. 7.40 Crores and Canara Housing Development Company - Rs. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this, the ld. DR of revenue supported the assessment order in both years and reliance was placed by him on the following judicial pronouncements. a) CIT Vs. Transport Corpn. India Ltd., 123 Taxman 806 (Andhra Pradesh) b) Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 98 Taxman 151 (SC) c) CIT Vs. U. Manohar Rao, 325 ITR 402 (Karnataka) 10. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that we have to decide two issues. The first issue involved in the appeals of the revenue is this as to whether in the facts of present case, various business expenses debited by assessee in the P&L account is allowable as business expenses in view of this fact that only a meagre income has been offered by assessee as business income being commission income of Rs. 5,11,008/- in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 4,48,106/- in Assessment Year 2014-15. On this issue, we find that the decision of ld. CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2013-14 is contained on pages 9 and 10 of his order in which he has also reproduced the finding of ld. CIT(A) in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008- 09. Hence these paras are reproduced hereinbelow from pages 9 and 10 of the order of CIT(A) for A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e during the year since there was a dispute with the development partner, M/s. IBC Knowledge Park. It is pertinent to note that with respect to this property, the appellant has also claimed legal expenses arid security charges, which were disallowed by the AO on the ground that though the constructed area appeared on the balance sheet, no income other than rental income was shown in the profit and loss account. It is the appellant's contention that there was a genuine dispute with regard to the joint development arrangement which necessitated these expenses which were related to securing its rights over its portion o the disputed property and furthering its business. I have to note that the AO has not disputed the fact of the legal dispute, but has questioned the expenditure on security with respect to the development of the security personnel on the disputed portion of the joint development rather than on the owned portion. On this point the appellant argues that it is the disputed portion that needs to be secured more than the owned portion since it is the former which is more vulnerable. 4.1.4 On a careful consideration of the issues, as mentioned above, I find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A) has reproduced the same paras 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 from the order of CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2008-09 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee except confirming the disallowance in respect of interest on interest free advances to three sister concerns i.e. Century Carbel - Rs. 20.12 Crores, Century Astral - Rs. 7.40 Crores and Canara Housing Development Company - Rs. 3.35 Crores. Before us, the ld. DR of revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present two years and in Assessment Year 2008- 09 because the ld. CIT(A) in the present two years has followed the order of CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2008-09. In Assessment Year 2008-09, the revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal also which has been decided by Tribunal in ITA Nos. 646 & 811/Bang/2012 dated 20.03.2013 and we find that in these two appeals of revenue, the only issue raised by revenue is regarding allowability of partnership insurance premium of Rs. 187 Lakhs and Rs. 506.04 Lakhs for these two years paid by the firm being the insurance premium in the nature of keyman insurance premia and regarding allowability of expenditure issue, no ground has been raised by revenue in the these two app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est free advances given by the assessee to three sister concerns. a) Century Corbel of Rs. 2012 Lakhs b) Century Austral of Rs. 740 Lakhs and c) Canara Housing Development Company of Rs. 335 Lakhs Total of Rs. 30.87 Crores 18. The Balance Sheet of the assessee firm for the year ending as on 31.03.2014 is available on record and as per the same, we find that the assessee's own interest free funds in the form of partners' capital as on 31.03.2014 was to the extent of Rs. 35,17,36,566/- and hence, it is seen that the interest free funds available with the assessee is much more than the interest free advances given by assessee firm to its sister concerns. In the light of these facts, we examine the applicability of the judgments of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As per para 10 of this judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it is held that if interest free funds available with assessee is sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time, the assessee has raised ....