TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Learned A.O. as well as Learned CIT(A) have erred in overlooking that Appellant is a Shipping Company and has been granted option to be taxed under the TONNAGE TAX SCHEME under Chapter XIIG of the Act and Section 115VA of the Act begins with a non- obstinate clause which reads as "NOTWITHSTANDING anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43 C in the case of a Company, the income from business of operating Qualifying Ships may at its option be computed in accordance with the provisions of thus Chapter and such income shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION" and therefore income of the Appellant Company has to be computed as per the provisions of Chapter XIIG and no adjustment can be made applying the provisions of Sections 28 to 43C suggested by TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER acting u/s.92 considering ARM'S LENGTH PRICE in connection with shipping freight taxable under Sections 28 to 43C of the Act. 2. DOUBLE FICTION IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER INCOME-TAX ACT: The Learned A.O. as well as the Learned CIT(A) have erred in not following the judgements of different Courts where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be considered as separate source of income. 6. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in considering in para 8.4 sub para xi that interest on loan given to subsidiary Company should be worked out at a rate of interest at LIBOR plus 200 basis points as against interest at LIBOR plus 100 basis points charged by Appellant overlooking that loans utilized by subsidiary Company was for short period of three months and the Appellant was not running any risk as the loan was giving loan to its wholly owned subsidiary Company and the prevailing rate of interest under CUP Method was LIBOR plus 100 basis points as the Appellant Company itself has availed a term loan of USD 15,000,000 from DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd. at LIBOR plus 100 basis points for seven years vide agreement dated 14.1.2005 and the same is comparable transaction and has to be accepted. 7. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure to the extent of Rs. 18,24,9467- U/S.14A on the ground of expenditure incurred for earning income which is tax-free overlooking that expenditure can be disallowed provided that the same is claimed by the Appellant in Computation of Income and when the Appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09 but not claimed in the Return of Income. 11. The Learned A.O. has erred in including sum of Rs. 25,12,533/- under the head MISCELLANEOUS INCOME overlooking the facts that the same was refund of INCOME-TAX for Assessment Years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and not Miscellaneous Income as submitted before Learned A.O. and the Learned CIT(A) rejected the claim in para 13.3 of appeal Order on the ground that the said claim was not made in the Return of Income filed. 12. Appellant craves leave to submit precised (summary) grounds of appeal add and or alter the above grounds of appeal". 3. In Ground No. 6, the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) on the issue of upholding the order of the AO partly by sustaining the addition on account of interest on loan from Associated Enterprise (AE) at LIBOR+200 basis points as against LIBOR+300 points made by the AO, whereas the assessee has benchmarked the said international transaction with its AE at LIBOR+100 basis points. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of owning and operation of vessels and managing vessels of its AE. Assessee entered into various Contracts of Affreightments with external parties f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee, after considering the submissions of assessee, as reproduced in para 8.3 of the appellate order by observing and holding as under: "8.4 I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant as against the observation/findings of the AO/TPO in their orders. The contentions raised, by the appellant as against its ground, of appeal are being discussed and decided as under: i. There is no dispute to the fact that for the loan which has been advanced to the AE interest is to be charged at the ALP rate. ii. Further the method applied by the appellant has also not been disputed by the TPO. iii. Only dispute is in respect of the rate of interest and its comparability with the rate charged to the AE by the appellant. iv. Appellant has charged interest at LIBOR + 100 basis points whereas the TPO has arrived at the rate of LIBOR + 300 basis points. v. There is no dispute about the fact of the difference in the time of agreement for the controlled and uncontrolled transaction and further the amount of loan being vastly different in these two agreements. vi. It is also a fact that the loan to the AE was granted for purchase of the ship. Further it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est received by the appellant by adopting rate of interest at LIBOR + 200 basis points. xii. This ground of appeal is accordingly partly allowed". 3.3. Ld. AR vehemently argued before the Bench that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in partly sustaining the addition qua the interest on loan advanced to AE in Singapore by directing the AO to bench mark the loan transaction at LIBOR+200 basis points, whereas the price charged by the assessee to the AE was an ALP which was benchmarked by the assessee on the basis of CUP method. The said method was the most suitable method in the present circumstances as the assessee has borrowed money from DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., which is operating from Singapore, from where the AE of the assessee is also running and operating its business. Ld. AR further contended that the reasons cited by the TPO and AE of geographical difference is of no importance and weight as both the assessee and the said international bank are operating from the same country i.e., Singapore. 3.4. Ld. DR submitted that since the loan was advanced by the DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., at LIBOR+100 basis points, the TPO as well as AO and finally CIT(A) erred in sustai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions relied upon by the Ld. DR, we find merits in the contention of Ld. AR that there was no geographical difference as observed by the TPO for the reason that DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., Singapore and assessee is operating from the same country i.e., Singapore. In our opinion, assessee has rightly followed the CUP method to benchmark the international transaction at the same rate at which it borrowed the loan from the bank, thereby incurring no extra cost nor earning any income on the transaction from the AE. We are of the considered view that the transaction by assessee with AE has rightly been benchmarked on CUP basis at LIBOR+100 basis points as the DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., Singapore has lent the money to assessee at the same rate at which the assessee lent the money to its AE meaning thereby had the AE borrowed funds from the Bank directly , these would have been available at the same rate of interest i.e. Libor + 100 basis point. In our view, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained on this point for this reason that the AE of the assessee and DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., is operating from the same country, so the reasons sought by the TPO and CIT(A) are not reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the as per provisions of Sec 14A, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income. Hence, the expenditure on exempt income was calculated as per Rule 8D and accordingly Rs. 45,54,204/- was disallowed and added to the total income. (iii) The AO has arrived at the disallowance based on. Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962. In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Bombay vs. DCIT Range 10(2), Mumbai and Anr. the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay have held that the Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 is applicable from A.Y. 08-09 but they have also held that the A.O. is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the-total income under the Act on a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The adoption of reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant fact is to arrive at certain level of objectivity in determination of expenditure attributable to earning of income which is not forming part of the total income. (iv) In view of the decision of Hon'ble cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....close of the year, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income. That the appellant company is covered by the provisions of Tonnage. Tax Scheme - Chapter XIIG wherein income of the shipping company is taxed on the basis of registered tonnage of ships without considering the freight income earned We have to state that while computing Tonnage Tax income, expenditure is neither claimed nor allowed and therefore there is no question of disallowing expenditure u/s. 14A. Informatively, dividend income, interest income etc. have been offered under Income from Other Sources and the Company has not claimed any expenditure against income shown under the head Income from Other Sources. We are to submit that expenses can be disallowed only when expenses have been claimed. Therefore, when no expense has been claimed, the question of disallowance does not arise. Without prejudice to our above submissions, we give below information in the format as requested by your goodself; S. NO. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) i The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of the total income Nil ii Expenditure by way of interest during the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following decisions: a. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd., [17 ITR (Trib) 587]; b. Tag Offshore Ltd. [49 Taxmann.com 209]; c. Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd., [38 taxmann.com 345] Ld. AR submitted that in the above decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, it was held that where the income of the assessee is computed under Tonnage Tax Scheme, no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is attracted. Finally, Ld. AR prayed the Bench that the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches may be followed and AO be directed to delete the disallowance. 4.4. Ld. DR relied on the order of AO and submitted that even if the income of assessee is computed under Tonnage Tax Scheme, it is presumed that the expenses incurred in connection to that are automatically taken care of and therefore, there is no force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the assessee has not claimed any expenses while computing the income under Tonnage Tax Scheme. Ld. DR prayed that the order of AO should be restored on this issue. 4.5. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record including the decisions cited by the Ld. AR, we observe that the income of the assessee has been computed under Tonnage Tax Scheme. Ld. AR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dt. 0909-2009 but the request of the assessee went unheaded before the AO. 5.2. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) upheld the action of AO by observing and holding as under: "10.3. In this regard it is stated that it is the appellant who had filed the return of income where such income was offered to tax and accordingly the claim which has been made before the AO neither in the return nor the appellant has claimed such income as exempt by way of revised return. Therefore relying on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (157 Taxmann 1), this ground of appeal is dismissed." 5.3. Ld. AR vehemently submitted before the Bench that the income which is not part of the total income under the regular provision as well as under the special provisions under MAT, cannot be brought to tax even if the assessee has erroneously offered the said income to tax while filing return of income. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has specifically brought to the notice of the AO vide letter dt. 09-09-2009 requesting that income to the extent of Rs. 2,46,050/- was erroneously returned as income and taxes got paid thereon and requested the AO to exclude the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and perusing the material on record before us and decision relied on, we find that assessee can make a plea, claiming deduction which was not claimed or inadvertently left from being claimed before the AO. In this case, assessee has vide letter dt. 09-09-2009, requested the AO to allow the deduction of municipal taxes to an extent of Rs. 75,549/-, while computing the total income, but the same was rejected. Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the claim stating that assessee has not claimed this amount in its return of income filed. The AO denied claim of assessee on the ground that it is not made in the return of income or revised return and thus following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., [157 Taxman 1], CIT(A) rejected the same. In our opinion, the First Appellate Authority is well within its jurisdiction to accept the fresh claim made by assessee even if not made in the return of income or as per the revised return. We therefore following the CBDT circular no14(XL-35) of 1955 and Bombay High Court decision in the case of Balmukund Acharya(supra), reverse the order of CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the deduction of municipal taxes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e income of the assessee, but wrongly relying on the decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd., [157 Taxman 1] (supra), upheld the action of AO. In our view, the claim of assessee could have been entertained by the appellate authority as the ratio laid down in the case of Goetze India Ltd., [157 Taxman 1] (supra) is not applicable to the appellate authorities. We therefore, direct the AO to exclude an amount of Rs. 25,12,477/- from the income of assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no. 11 is allowed. 9. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 by the assessee are of legal nature challenging the applciablility of Transfer Prixing provisions to Tonnage Tax Scheme are not be adjudicated as all the issues have been decided on merits. In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 8051/Mum/2011 AY 2006-07(Revenue Appeal): 10. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition/adjustment of Rs. 9,69,74,059/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of profit split....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompanies and prove with evidence that similar Indian ships are not available for lower freight at which the Singapore subsidiary offers vessel. In order to meet such an eventuality, the assessee entered into an agreement with the associate concern at Singapore to make available the ships to the Govt Undertaking when assessee's ships are not available. Accordingly to AO such transactions during the year needed to be bench marked and he accordingly referred the matter to the TPO after obtaining requisite approvals u/s. 92 of the Act. The TPO passed order u/s. 92CA(3) on 2710-2009, making the following adjustment: Adjustment Amount (Rs) 1. Technical Management Fees 16,46,859 2. Interest on loan advanced Associated Enterprises to 10,23,204 3. Inchartering of vessels 9,43,03,996 Total 9,69,74,059 11.2. The AO , accordingly, issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why the said addition should not be made to the income of the assessee which was replied by assessee vide letter dt. 06-10-2009, giving detailed objections to such adjustment and the said letter has been reproduced by the AO from Pg. 2 to 16 of the assessment order. Finally, the AO rejecting the contentions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r uncontrolled sources. iii. The action of the TPO in resorting of Profit Split method is not a justified method. There is nothing on record to suggest that the operations of the related party are highly integrated so as to make the evaluation on individual basis difficult. Nor it can be said that both the party own valuable non-intangible assets for which no comparable data is available. It is also seen that the CIT(A) on the same facts and circumstances for the earlier years had come to the conclusion that no adjustment was required to be made. The same decision stands for the current year also. iv. To sum up, the CUP method (external) is the best method for comparability of the transaction. The rate of Trans Chart are quite favourable/higher as compared to the rates charged by the appellant to it's AE [point (h) of para 5.3 above]. The hire of the 7 voyages from A.E. ships, was to fulfil the contractual terms and not a poly to boost the business of the A.e. Thus taking into account all the facts and circumstances, including the decision taken in the earlier year, the addition of Rs. 9,69,74,059/- is deleted". 11.4. At the outset, we would like to mention that addition on ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessee has sold its second hand Vessel M.V. Prabhu Puni to 100% subsidiary M/S Tolani Shipping (Singapore) Pvt Ltd. for a sales consideration of US. $ 9,50,000 equivalent to Rs. 45,32,45,000/- which was reduced from the block of assets. The assessee has not made the claim while filing the return of income but made the claim before the AO vide letter dated 10.02.2006 during the course of assessment proceedings. The revised computation filed by the assessee are as under:- Profit before Tax as per Profit and Loss A/C Rs. 156,377,243 Less: Profit on Sale of Vessel(Net) Rs. 62,730,353 Book Profit Rs. 93,646,890 However the AO did not consider the submissions of the assessee and rejected the said claim. Thus the book profits were computed after taking into account the profit on sale of vessel to subsidiary company. 15.1. In the appellate proceedings ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the contentions of the assessee as under: "5.4 For the computation of tax under section 115JB of the I.T. Act, the appellant has to prepare the profit and loss account as per provisions of Companies Act. If it is so, the profit on sale of depreciable as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso not correct to say that profit from the sale of depreciable assets is always not taxed. Such profits may also be taxable in view of provisions of section 50, 50A, 50B of the I.T. Act. I am of the view that because of this fact only the profit from sale of depreciable asset is not excluded in section 115JB of the I.T. Act. Further in my view, it may not be correct to say that the profits from sale of depreciable asset is exempt under the Income Tax Act. It is not so. If any profit arises from the transfer of any capital asset irrespective of whether it is eligible for depreciation or not is taxable under section 45 of the I.T. Act. The quantification is only dealt by section 50 or 50A or 50B of the I.T. Act. If the sale price of a depreciable asset is less than the WDV of the block of assets (in which the asset which was sold was a part) then the capital gain will be Nil. If the sale price exceeds the WDV of the block of assets, then the excess will be capital gains. Nowhere in section 50 of the Act it is mentioned that capital gains on depreciable asset is not taxable or exempt. 5.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres has held as follows: "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 115JB of the Act. The Ld. A.R. took us through the definition of term 'income' and submitted that under clause (vi) capital gain is included in the definition of income which is chargeable under section 45 of the Act. Ld. A.R. submitted that the term transfer is defined in section 2(47) of the Act and only profit and gain arising from the transfer of capital assets shall be chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the expression transfer as defined under section 2(47) of the Act inter alia includes sale, exchange or relinquishment of assets. And thus sale of fixed assets by the assessee should normally fall under the definition of transfer as given in section 2(47) of the Act. However, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the capital gain in case of depreciable assets is dealt with by the provision of section 50 of the Act which provides that even if a transaction falls under the definition of transfer as per provision of section 2(47) of the Act they shall not be chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Act in view of the provision of section 50 of the Act. Accordingly, the gains and profits arising on said transfer of depreciable assets by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciable assets while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. 15.3. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of authorities below by submitting that Section 115JB of the Act is a complete code in itself and therefore, there is no room for any adjustment what-so-ever beyond what has been mentioned in the section itself. Therefore, the Ld. DR prayed that the order of CIT(A) was perfectly in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. 15.4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record before us. It is an undisputed fact that during the year assessee has sold vessel i.e., depreciable asset, on which it has shown profit of Rs. 6,27,30,353/- in the Profit & Loss A/c. While computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act , the assessee reduced the said figure on the ground that profit on sale of depreciable assets will be form part of book profit when the Block of Assets to which the said asset pertains is not eliminated from the books or is still existing in the books of account. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below. We have perused the decision in the case of Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [60 taxmann.com 314] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part II to Schedule VI of the Companies Act should be read along with the 'Notes forming part of accounts'. Hence the net profit shown in the Profit and loss account shall be first adjusted to take care of the qualifications given in the Notes. Thereafter only, the provisions of Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB should be applied. (b) the gain arising on transfer to assets to subsidiary company does not fall under the definition of "income" at all. Hence, once a particular receipt is not regarded as income at all, the question of bringing the same to tax under any o* provisions of the Act does not arise. 14. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has attached a note in the Notes forming part of accounts explaining therein that the profits arising on transfer of capital asset to its subsidiary company is, in its opinion, not coming within the purview of sec. 115JB of the Act. It is contended that the Profit and loss account should be read along with the Notes forming part of accounts and the net profit should be understood as the net profit shown in the profit and loss account as adjusted by the notes given in the No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit and Loss account, but otherwise disclosed in Notes to Accounts. The Tribunal held that the said liability would have to be deducted while determining "Book Profits" under section 115JB of the Act. 16. We notice that an identical issue was considered by the Visakhapatnam bench of ITAT also in the case of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd v. Dy. CIT [20101 6 ITR (Trib) 407. In the case of assessee therein, it was noticed that the Government of India, by an order dated 24.3.99, had waived loan and interest accrued thereon to the tune of Rs. 591.13 crores which was otherwise payable by that assessee. However, the said company did not incorporate the effect of such waiver in its books of account, though it disclosed the details of waiver in the notes on accounts. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee would be liable to pay tax as per the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act, (Minimum Alternative tax), if the waiver benefits are incorporated in the books of account accordingly he included the waiver benefits in the book profit. The Tribunal, after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sain Processing &Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), held that the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arged to the profit and account but is otherwise disclosed in the notes of the accounts, it would come within the ambit of the expression "shown" in the profit and loss account, as notes to accounts form part of the profit and loss account by virtue of sub-section (6) of section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956. This is quite evident if the provisions of subsection (6) of section 211 of the Companies Act, are read in conjunction with sub section (1 A) as well as the Explanation to section 115J of the Act'. Hence, in the decision given by Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra) and also other two decisions rendered by the Tribunal (supra), it has been held that the notes given in the Notes forming part of accounts have to be read along with the Profit and Loss account, meaning thereby the items having effect over the Net profit shown in the Profit and Loss account, but otherwise disclosed in the Notes to accounts should be adjusted to the said Net profit. Such kind of adjustment is held to be falling "within the ambit of the expression 'shown' in the profit and loss account". The ratio of these decisions is that the expression "net profit as shown in the profit and loss acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax refund in assessee's appeal in Ground No.4 in AY 2005-06, addl. Ground No.1 AY 2007-08 and Ground No.12 in AY 2008-09 is identical to the issue in ground no. 11 in AY 2006-07 which has been decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore our decision would, mutatis mutandi, apply to the above grounds also. Accordingly the above grounds are allowed. 19. Ground of appeal No. 7 for the AY. 2007-08 in assessee's appeal is extracted below: "The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 1,13,497/- under section 94(7) on the ground of dividend stripping." 19.1. After having heard the arguments of both the parties and perusing the facts on records , we observe that the ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and speaking order as per the provisions of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any reasons to disturb the order on this issue. Ground of appeal No. 7 is decided against the assessee. 20. The issue raised in assessee's appeal in this ground No. 10 in AY. 2008-09 is similar to the issue as decided by us in the AY. 2007-08 in ground of appeal No. 7. Therefore our decision on Ground No.7 in AY 2007-08 would be applicable for Ground No. 10 in AY. 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es should be considered instead of Rs. 45.32 crores for determining the Long-term Capital Gains. 22.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records carefully including the decision of the coordinate bench dated 30-04-2013 passed on this issue increasing the value at which ship was transferred to the AE at Rs. 50.00 Cr . In our opinion if the price of the ship is increased by making TP adjustments, then the value of shares allotted in lieu of ship transferred should be increased by the corresponding amount. Accordingly we direct the AO to take the cost of acquisition at Rs. 50 Crores. The Ground No. 9 of the assessee is allowed. 23. Ground of appeal No 11 for the AY. 2008-09 in assessee's appeal is against the order of CIT(A) confirming addition of Rs. 76,84,762/- being disallowance U/S 14A while computing Book Profit U/S.115JB. 23.1. The facts in brief are that the AO has made addition /adjustment to the book profits while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act for the disallowance as made u/s 14A of the Act. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and going through the facts on records, we observe that no disallowance can be made u/s.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- (iii) Interest Income received from Tolani Bulk Carriers Ltd., as subsidiary company of the Assessee engaged in shipping business and therefore the same is business income of the Assessee Company - Rs. 15,46,074/- (iv) Interest Income on security deposit on account of cases pertaining to custom duty which are part of shipping business covered under Tonnage Tax scheme - Rs. 56,250/- (v) Interest Income on fixed deposits with Bank against Bank Guarantee given to custom authorities which is part of the Tonnage Tax income - Rs. 18,635/- (vi) Interest Income on account of delayed payment of freight by Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant which is part of Tonnage Tax Scheme - Rs. 16,116/- 25.2. We have heard the rival contentions on the admission of additional grounds and also perused the facts emanating out of the records before us. After taking into account the contentions of the representatives and the facts on records, we are of the view that issues raised by way of additional grounds do not require any further verification. The issue raised are in respect of incomes which are such that are prima facie either exempt or are covered by the Tonnage Tax Scheme and were inadvertently no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-07 would, mutatis mutandis , apply to these grounds as well. Resultantly the grounds in both assessment years are dismissed. 30. The ground No. 3 in revenue appeal is against the order of CIT(A) deletion the addition as income from the other sources on account of interest from loans given to employees, sundry balances written back and interest income on short term deposits. 30.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee treated the interst on loan to employees Rs. 496480/-, sundry balances written off Rs. 59877/- and interest income of Rs. 1,26,59,058/- as income from business. The AO came to the conclusion that the said income are not connected to the core business of the assessee and hence assessed the same as income from other source. 30.2. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after considering the contention of the assessee by observing and holding as under: 6.2 The appellant submitted that housing loans and vehicles given to employees and the interest received thereon is income from core activity and therefore the same is business income as held by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Shipping Corporation of India vs. ACIT 133 ITD 290. 6.3 The appellant ....