TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) That the Id, CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,10,056/- made u/s 40(l)(ia) of the LT,Act, 1961. (4) That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs,l,23,08,000/- made on account of disallowance of claimed in respect of foreign exchange (Forex) loss, (5) That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,77,500/- made on account of disallowance of interest on advances for purchase of land. 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of Multi model transport operators, general carrier of international and domestic cargo within India and abroad by all modes and mixes such a rail, road, sea, air, inland water transport ropeways etc. Assessee filed its return on 21.09.2012 for assessment year 2012-13 declaring total of Rs. (-)19,88,09,556/-. 3. With regard to ground no. 1, ld. A.O. had discussed the issue at page no. 2 to 9 at para no. 2 and ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue at page no. 2 to 10 at para no. 3 to 3.3. The Assessing Officer has observed Assessee has made investment of Rs. 19.86 crores as on 31st March, 2012 whereas such value was R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owance under Section 14A of the Account can be made. The Appellant gets relief of Rs. 16,19,259. This ground of appeal is treated as allowed." 4. As facts of the case for the present case are identical to the earlier case. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly granted relief to the assessee as there is no exempt income in the assessment year 2012-13 and we also draw support from the case of Corrtech Energy Ltd. 372 ITR 97 (Guj.) wherein it is held that the Tribunal had recorded the finding of the fact that assessee did not make any claim for exemption of any income from payment of tax. Hence, no disallowance could be made u/s. 14A of Income Tax Act. Therefore, respectfully following the above said judgment, we dismiss this ground of appeal. 5. Now we come to ground relating to deleting the addition of Rs. 16,33,143/- made u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 6. The Assessing Officer has observed that appellant has shown outstanding liability of Rs. 16,33,143/- in the name of various parties for a period exceeding three years and same has not been paid off even after lapse of three years which means that liability has ceased to exist as per Part 1 of Division 1 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we come to next ground relating to deleting the addition of Rs. 2,10,056/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9. Ld. A.O. has discussed the issue at page no. 24 to 26 in para no. 6 and ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue at page no. 24 to 28 in para 7 to 7.7. During the courses of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer asked appellant to explain why it has not deducted TDS on payment of Rs. 2,10,046/- made to Shreyas Relay System Limited when it has already deducted TDS on payment of volume discount to various vendors. The appellant's reply dated 11th March 2015 is reproduced at page 25 of assessment proceedings wherein appellant has explained that appellant has made payment to Shreyas Relay System limited and other 15 companies in respect of commission and brokerage for getting container cargo business from various parties and has also deducted TDS on such payment. It was also submitted that assessee company provides logistic services also to payment of Rs. 2,10,046/- made to Shreyas Relay System Limited for which volume discount is given and on such discount provisions of TDS are not applicable hence no TDS was deducted. 10. In support of its contention,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....treated as differed revenue expenditure as per guideline issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 29th December, 2011. The Appellant has also argued that as loan has been used for day-to-day business activities and not for acquisition of assets, foreign exchange fluctuation is allowable as business loss. The computation of such foreign exchange loss as submitted before Assessing Officer is also reproduced at para - 5 of the assessee submitted. 14. In this case, loss recognized on account of foreign exchange fluctuation and same is subsisting liability and not merely a contingent or a hypothetical liability. Ld. A.R. cited an order of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) wherein it is held " loss suffered by the assessee on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on date of balance sheet as an item of expenditure, same to be allowed in favour of assessee." 15. In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed. 16. Now we come to ground relating to deleting the addition of Rs. 20,77,500/- on account of disallowance of interest on advances for purchase of land. . 17. The assessing officer has obs....