TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2003-04. 3. In ground no. 1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,98,50,000 on account of disallowance of interest expenditure which was admittedly a provision and not covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Core Healthcare Ltd [(2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC)]. 4. During the course of reopened scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,98,50,000 and, in a note to the computation of taxable income, stated that the provision for interest liability of Rs. 21,98,50,000 which has accrued but not provided for, is deductible under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on another aspect, and, Their Lordships, vide judgment dated 26th July 2016, were pleased to confirm the decision of the Tribunal. The relief granted by the coordinate bench, on this particular aspect, however reached finality because of the Assessing Officer not challenging the Tribunal findings on that aspect before Hon'ble Court above. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 2191, Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in law and on facts with respect to the addition of Rs. 4,84,19,370 on account of interest free loans and advances to sister concerns in directing to verify the claim of actual interest expenses of the assessee and not considering that addition of only 3% of the total interest expenditure which was attributable to interest free advances to sister concern. The CIT(A) has erred in law in giving the above direction when actually the assessee did not discharge the onus of showing the nexus of interest free advances and loan with interest free funds. 9. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has advanced loans of Rs. 52,32,92,352 to a subsidiary company by the name o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e us. 10. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. We find that there is no dispute that the material facts and circumstances of this assessment year, vis-à-vis the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03, are materially similar. The relief on this issue was given by the coordinate bench was challenged by the Assessing Officer before Hon'ble High Court. We further find that earlier decision dated 5th June 2009 passed by the coordinate bench was carried in appeal before Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on this issue, and, Their Lordships, vide judgment dated 26th July 2016, were pleased to confirm the decision of the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000 being the registration charges. Be that as it may, the CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance of Rs. 1,32,000. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 15. We find that the fees paid to a Delhi based agent for registration of products in Iraq, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a payment of kickbacks to Iraqi regime. The erudite discussion in the assessment order, about the Volker Committee report and the kickbacks to Iraqi regime by those doing business with Iraq in the sanction days, has nothing to do with this disallowance. We find that the....