AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TONNAGE TAX SCHEME UNDER CHAPTER XIIG OF THE ACT: 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of Transfer Pricing is a method of arriving at Taxable Income and the same 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 pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed CIT(A) vide para 12.3 of the appeal Order only on the ground that the said claim was made in the letter dated 9.9.2009 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith AE at LIBOR+300 basis points as proposed by the TPO. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of assessee, 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 transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, which what is considered suitable to be adopted instead of LIBOR + 300 basis point which has been adopted by the TPO, for which no basis has been given. Accordingly the AO/TPO is directed to work out the adjustment to arrive at the ALP of the interest 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) Ltd. The TPO benchmarked the transaction at LIBOR+300 basis points on the ground that they have geographical differences and the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of assessee by directing the AO to charge interest at LIBOR+200 basis points. After considering the facts of the case in totality and decisions 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 av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and law charges etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no costs/expenses attributable to earning of the income which is not forming part of the total income, and accordingly the disallowance has to be worked out in view of section 14 A of the Act. (ii) The AO at para 5 on page 17 of his order has stated that 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arning tax free income since all the loans have, been availed for acquisition of ships and therefore the same have not betn used for purchase of investments yielding tax free income. The Learned AO has accepted the submission of the appellant and he restricted the disallowance of expenditure computed at one half per cent of the average of the value of investment at the. opening and 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR submitted that the income is computed on presumptive/deemed basis on the tonnage capacity of the ship irrespective of shipping income earned or shipping expenditure incurred. Therefore, while making computations of tonnage income, no expenses have been claimed and therefore the order of CIT(A), upholding the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 18,24,946/- is incorrect and should be set aside. Ld. AR in defense of his arguments relied on the 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 autom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- as taxable interest income even though vide letter dt. 09-09-2009 the assessee claimed that same is not taxable. 5.1. The facts in brief are that assessee while computing the income, erroneously offered to tax, the tax free interest income of Rs. 2,46,050/- on account of interest received from 6.85% tax free bonds. The said interest is exempt u/s. 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act and should not have been part of the taxable income as well as book profits under MAT provisions. Assessee brought the facts to the notice of AO vide letter 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 subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....549/- from property income. Realizing his mistake, assessee vide letter dt. 09-09-2009, made a claim before the AO, which did not find favour and ultimately, the same was rejected by the AO. 7.2. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) also rejected the appeal of assessee on this issue by holding that neither the claim was made by assessee in the return of income nor any revised return was filed. In this connection, Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Goetze India Ltd., [157 Taxman 1] for the said claim. 7.3. After hearing both the sides 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion(s) relied on, we are of the view that even if the assessee has inadvertently and erroneously offered refund of income tax in his total income, there is no bar in making correction of mistake in the return of income. Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in denying the said relief to assessee. In our view, when the refund is an asset of the assessee, which has been given by the department on account of being excess payment by assessee of tax and therefore, same cannot be included in the income of assessee. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) should have directed the AO to exclude the said income tax refund from the 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 appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment undertaking asks the assessee to make available the ships, if assessee does not have own ships available due to preoccupation and pre-engaged with existing commitments, then the assessee makes arrangement to incharter vessel of similar capacity from associate concerns/third party in order to provide the same to the said Government undertakings so that assessee does not suffer any losses on account of non honouring the contractual obligation/commitments. In that event, assessee availed the vessels from the associate concern in Singapore. For that purpose, assessee has to obtain permission from DG Shipping, a regulator for Indian Shipping Companies 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 TP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich had made the appellant liable to make available ships as per contract, as and when it required. Thus hiring of AE ships for 7 voyages was a business compulsion and not an exercise for assisting the AE in getting business. The rate at which the appellant has paid to the AE compares favourably with the prevailing market rate as concluded by the Trans Chart, New Delhi, which is a chartering wing of Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. of India. The market fixtures determined by the Transfer Chart are based on actual data of charges and often referred by the brokers in India who are in its panel. Thus the date provided by the Trans Chart is widely and routinely used in the ordinary course in the industry to negotiate prices for 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 circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D not applicable as the income of assessee is assessed to tax under Tonnage Tax Scheme. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 14. In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 2582/Mum/2010 AY 2003-04: 15. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The issue raised in Ground Nos. 1 to 7 are against the order of CIT(A), upholding the order of AO in making addition of Rs. 6,27,30,353/- to the book profits on account of profit on sale of depreciable assets, whereas as per the Income Tax rules, sale price is deductible from written down value of Block of Assets and therefore there is no profit on sale of fixed assets while calculating the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. During the year 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue in favour of the assessee relying on the provisions of section 115JB(5) of the I.T. Act which reads as follows: (5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section. The computation of book profit is provided in section 115JB of the I.T. Act. Section 115JB(5) coveys clearly that the issues which are dealt in section 115JB of the I.T. Act cannot be covered by the other provisions of the I.T. Act. In view of this, in my opinion the profits from depreciable assets cannot be deducted for the purpose of Book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act irrespective of the fact whether the profit on sale of depreciable assets are taxed or not under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act. 5.6 It is also 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 ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein it has been held that profit arising from transfer of capital asset by the assessee to wholly owned subsidiary company is liable to be excluded from the net profit and the net profit so arrived at should be taken as profit for the purpose of computation of book profit under Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the order of AO in not excluding the profit on sale of depreciable assets while computing book profits under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Ld. AR contended that profit arising on transfer of capital asset to subsidiary is not treated as income u/s 2(24) of the Act since it does not enter the computational provision at all under the normal provision of the Act, therefore, the same should not be considered for the purpose of computing book profit under 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 prof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be included while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. Ld. AR submitted that this issue has been settled in favour of assessee by a series of decisions. In the case of Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [60 taxmann.com 314] (Mumbai-Trib) (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench has decided that the profit arising from sale of capital assets is liable to be excluded from the net profit i.e., net profit, in the Profit & Loss A/c should be reduced by the amount of profit arising on transfer of capital asset and amounts so arrived at should be taken as net profit in the Profit & Loss A/c for the purpose of computation of book profit under Explanation (1) to Section 115JB of the Act. Ld. AR finally prayed that in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the order of CIT(A) be set aside and the AO be directed to exclude the profit on sale of depreciable 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 sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of sec. 115JB come into operation for the assessee, since the tax payable by the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act is less than the amount of tax prescribed u/s 115JB of the Act. 13. Though the assessee has credited the profit and loss account with the profits arising on transfer of a capital asset to its subsidiary company, yet it has excluded the same from the net profit while computing "book profit" in terms of sec. 115JB of the Act. Admittedly, the said profit is not an item of exclusion prescribed under the Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB of the Act. The contentions advanced by the assessee in support of its action are twofold, viz., (a) it has clearly stated in the Notes forming part of accounts that the said profit is not includible for computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, even though it is credited to Profit and Loss account. The profit and loss 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 gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fines "book profit" to mean "net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant assessment year". To our minds, as long as the depreciation which is not charged to the profit and loss 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.' 15. The decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, cited above, was followed by the Pune "A" Bench of the Tribunal in the case of K.K. Nag Ltd. (supra). In this case, the incremental liability towards leave encashment was not debited to Profit 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may refer to the provisions of sec. 211(6) of the Companies Act, which read as under:- "(6) For the purpose of this section, except where the context otherwise requires any reference to a balance sheet or profit and loss account shall include any notes thereon or documents annexed thereto giving information required by this Act and allowed by this Act to be given in the form of such notes or documents." Hence, in the case of Sain Processing &Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under, after considering the provisions of Companies Act:- (extracted below again at the cost of repetition) 'According to us, once this information is disclosed in the notes to the accounts it would clearly fall within the ambit of the Explanation to section 115J of the Act which defines "book profit" to mean "net profit as shown in the profit and account for the relevant assessment year". To our minds, as long as the depreciation which is not charged 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in AY 2005-06, ground nos 1 to 5 in AY 2007-08 & 2008-09, Addl. Ground no. 1 in AY 2009-10 and ground Nos.10 to 12 in AY 2010-11 are legal issues relating to applicability of Transfer Pricing and are identical to ground Nos. 1 to 5 in AY 2006-07 which have not been adjudicated by us for the reasons that the issues on merits have been decided. Therefore similarly the legal issues in all these appeals of the assessee are not being adjudicated as stated hereinabove. 17. The issue in assessee's appeal in ground No. 3 in AY 2005-06, ground no 6 in AY 2007-08 & 2008-09, Ground No. 4 in AY 2009-10 and Ground No. 1 to 5 in 2010-11 are identical to issue as decided by us in Ground No. 7 in AY 2006-07 and therefore, our decision on ground no. 7 in /ay 2006-07 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to these appeals as well. Accordingly, the issue raised by the assessee in these grounds qua applicability of provisions 14A to tonnage tax company is decided in favour of the assessee. 18. The issue of interest on income 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. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No. 1491/Mum/2008 for AY 2003-04 order dated 30.04.2013. The assessee submitted before the AO that the price of the share should be taken at Rs. 50,00,00,000/-.The ld CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue. 22.2. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has sold shares of its Associate Company during the year. The Assessee contended that that initially, the assessee had been allotted shares of its Associate Company, in lieu of the value of ship transferred to the Associate Company during the previous year ended 2003-04. The ITAT by order dated 30-04-2013, ITA No. 1491/M/2008 for A.Y.2003-04, determined the price of ship at Rs. 50,00,00,000/- instead of Rs. 45,32,45,000/- The Ld.AR therefore argued that since the shares were allotted initially against the value of the ship, therefore, in the event of any addition to the value of the ship, determined on account of Transfer Pricing provisions, there should be corresponding increase in the cost of the shares of the subsidiary company and subsequently. The revised cost of shares at Rs. 50 crores should be considered instead of Rs. 45.32 crores for determining the Long-term Capital Gains. 22.3. We have heard the rival contentions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regards the additional grounds raised by the assessee of appeal for the AY. 2005-06, it is contended by the Ld AR that the additional grounds of appeal have been taken as the same inadvertently have not been taken in the original grounds of appeal. It is contended by the Ld. AR that in these additional grounds, it is either that the incomes that have been offered to tax in the return of income are exempt from tax or are covered by the Tonnage Tax Scheme and therefore, should not have been offered to tax in the return of income. The Ld AR therefore, contends that the additional grounds of appeal should be admitted and disposed of. 25.1. The additional grounds of appeal are - (i) Interest Income received from 6.85% IIFCL Tax-free Bonds which are exempt u/s. 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore the same are not taxable. - Rs. 2,29,647/- (ii) Interest Income received from staff members employed for shipping business covered under Tonnage Tax Business and therefore the same is part of shipping business income not taxable as Income from Other Sources - Rs. 1,86,621/- (iii) Interest Income received from Tolani Bulk Carriers Ltd., as subsid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds as per law and facts after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 27. The Ground Nos. a to d in AY 2005-06, ground no. 1 for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, ground no. (ii) in AY 2009-10 all revenue appeals are identical to one as decide by us in ground no. 1 in AY 2006-07 in revenue appeal which has been dismissed by us. Therefore our decision on ground no. 1 in AY 2006-07 would, mutatis mutandis , apply to these grounds as well. Resultantly the grounds in the respective assessment years are dismissed. 28. The ground no. 2 for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, ground no. (i) in AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 all revenue appeals are identical to one as decide by us in ground no. 2 in AY 2006-07 in revenue appeal which has been dismissed by us. Therefore our decision on ground no. 2in AY 2006-07 would, mutatis mutandis apply to these grounds as well. Resultantly the grounds in the respective assessment years are dismissed. 29. The ground No. 3 for AY 2007-08, ground no. 4 for AY 2008-09 both revenue appeals are identical to one as decide by us in ground no. 3 in AY 2006-07 in revenue appeal which has been dismissed by us. Therefore our decision on ground no. 3 in AY 2006-07 would, mutat....