TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the interest expenditure as revenue expenditure on the ground that the same was allowed as revenue expenditure by the department in earlier assessment year i.e. 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2011-12 ignoring to the fact that each assessment is independent and separate and the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the Income Tax proceedings. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in stating that assessee had claimed interest expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,64,56,688/- for A.Y. 2011-12 whereas no such interest expense was claimed by the assessee as per the assessment records. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in holding that inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ense claimed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) vide order dated 05.06.2015 deleted the disallowance holding that the payment of interest is not penal in nature. The CIT (A) further held that such payment of interest is revenue in nature and hence the same is eligible for deduction while computing business income. 4. Before us Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has made payment of interest as it has not paid the installment at a due time and the interest payment for delayed payment as such is penal in nature and hence not allowable in view of the explanation below section 37(1) of the Act. He further submitted that this payment being related to the housing project....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, payment of interest on such outstanding EDC charges cannot be added to any stock or work in progress. The interest paid pertains to the year under consideration and is revenue in nature and accordingly the CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition. He further submitted that the similar issue has come up in the case of ACIT vs. Ferrous Township Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.5997/Del/2015 dated 05.04.2018 and M/s Ferrous Township Pvt. Ltd. vs.DCIT ITA No. 5812/Del/2015 dated 06.09.2017 and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submission and perused the order passed by the authorities below. On going through the orders and material referred to before us, we note that assessee during the year has incurred an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... trade of gold jewellery - Assessee claimed that it used to import jetwellery manufacturing machinery under Export Promotion Council Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) at a concessional rate with an export obligation which it could not fulfill and, thus, was required to pay interest to DGFT - Assessee's claim for deduction of interest was rejected on ground that said payment was penal in nature - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal held that amount paid was not penal in nature as much as it was as per declared policy of Government and occasioned by failure of assessee's conduct was an offence or that it did anything that was prohibited by law, payment in question did not fall within mischief of Explanation below section 38(12) ....