AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated 25/01/2017 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1351,78,51,596, under normal provisions of the Act, after making certain additions/disallowances. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, granted partial relief to the assessee. Being aggrieved, both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us. ITA No.268/Mum./2018 Assessee's Appeal - A.Y. 2013-14 3. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -55, Mumbai erred in applying Rule 8D and disallowed a sum of Rs. 69.44 lacs (net of Rs. 23.87 lacs offered by assessee) u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -55, Mumbai disallowed Rs. 26.79 lacs on account of Transfer pricing adjustments for low mark up on support service provided to associated enterprises. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -55.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 14A of the Act has been deleted in the absence of any satisfaction being recorded by the AO. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative ("learned DR") vehemently relied upon the order passed by the AO. 8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, in the present case, the assessee earned a dividend income of Rs. 31,69,67,788 from domestic companies/mutual funds and also on interest on tax-free REC bonds amounting to Rs. 2,16,86,381, which has been claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act. Further, there is also no dispute regarding the fact that the assessee while computing its taxable income suo-moto disallowed an amount of Rs. 23,86,531 as an expenditure incurred for earning the aforesaid exempt income. As per the assessee, the aforesaid suo-moto disallowance is based on the report obtained from the accountant, who after verifying assessee's books of accounts and relevant records has estimated the amount of disallowance. The working of aforesaid suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee, forms part of the paper book on page 329, as under: Sr. No. Particulars Rupe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to compute the disallowance of Rs. 1,51,24,084/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules, after considering the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. 10. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note certain relevant provisions of the Act, which are necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand. Section 10 of the Act deals with income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee. Section 14A of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Further, section 14A(2) of the Act, reads as under: "(2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does in form part of the total income under this Act". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable." (emphasis supplied) 12. Therefore, the satisfaction as required to be recorded under the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not limited to merely disagreeing with the submission of the assessee and requires that the AO should also provide the basis for reaching such a conclusion, after having regard to the accounts of the assessee. However, as noted above, in the present case the AO merely proceeded to compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D without examining the correctness of the claim of the assessee regarding expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income. It is evident from the record that the assessee's own funds, i.e. share capital and reserves & surplus, are Rs. 2487.78 crore, while investment in tax-free securities is only limited to Rs. 165.07 crore and therefore it can be presumed that the assessee had sufficient own funds for making the aforesaid investment in tax-free securities. Further, it is also evident from the record that the assessee has computed the suo-moto disallowance on the basis of the salary cost of the designated employees, however, there is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. It is only thereafter that the provisions of section 14A (2) and (3) read with rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable." Thus, Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be invoked where the suo moto disallowance made by the respondent assessee is not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In the absence of recording the aforesaid fact of non- satisfaction in terms of Section 14A(2) of the Act, invocation of Rule 8D is not permissible. (e) Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Apex Court, this question also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained." 14. Since, in the present case, no proper satisfaction has been recorded by the AO in terms of the provisions of section 14A(2) of the Act, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, about the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."). By considering itself as the tested party, the assessee identified five comparable companies with a single-year weighted margin of 8.46%. As the assessee has charged a markup of 12% on cost for these transactions, accordingly, it claimed that the international transaction of provision of support services and intragroup services is at arm's length price ("ALP"). 13. The AO made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") for the determination of ALP of the aforesaid international transaction. The TPO vide order dated 21/10/2016 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act rejected two companies selected as comparables by the assessee and included two other companies i.e. Axis Intergrated Systems Ltd. and Inmacs Management Services Ltd. as comparables to the assessee. Accordingly, by considering the following five companies as comparables to the assessee, the TPO arrived at average OP/OC of 22.82%:- Sr. No. Name of the Company Margin (OP/OC) 1. Axis Integrated Systems Ltd. 36.30% 2. Inmacs Management Services Ltd. 41.11% 3. H G S Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 15.33% 4. I C R A Management Consulting Ltd. 2.11% 5. Konmineni Infot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the business undertaken by this company during the year under consideration. Further, the company has claimed to have earned its revenue from operations from sales, liaison charges, and reimbursement of expenses. It is pertinent to note that there are no details as to from where these liaison charges were earned. From Note 26 of the financial statement pertaining to additional disclosure, we find that the company has traded in Digital Certificate and quantitative details of the trade have been mentioned therein. Accordingly, in view of the information as provided in the annual report of this company, we agree with the submissions of the assessee that the nature of activities undertaken by this company is ambiguous and in any case cannot be said to be similar to the business support services rendered by the assessee, during the year under consideration, to its associated enterprises. Further, there is no material available on record to show that this company is engaged in the activities noted by the TPO in para-5.3 of its order. In view of our aforesaid findings, we are of the considered view that Axis Integrated Systems Ltd. is not comparable to the assessee, and accordingly, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the learned AR, therefore in view of aforesaid findings, ground no.2 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed. 21. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to transfer pricing adjustment on account of non-recovery of charges for providing the letter of comfort/support. 22. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the TPO noted that apart from the international transactions reported by the assessee in Form No.3CEB, the assessee has issued non-contractual letters of comfort/support to banks on behalf of some of its subsidiaries from time to time and has not charged anything from its associated enterprises. It was observed that the associated enterprises have availed loans amounting to Rs. 149.56 crore (approx.) based on the letters of comfort issued by the assessee. We find that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the assessee made similar submissions as were made in the preceding assessment year. However, the TPO vide order dated 21/10/2016 passed under section 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n repayment. Therefore, it has been the submission of the assessee that the letters of comfort cannot be called on to make good the default if any by the subsidiaries and thus cannot be said to be covered within the scope of transfer pricing provisions, which requires determination of ALP. 24. The letters of comfort, pursuant to which the loan of Rs. 123.46 crore was availed by the associated enterprises from the banks outside India, are reproduced as under, for ready reference:- (i) "Re. Facilities extended by Citibank N.A to Asian Paints (Bangladesh) Limited We confirm that we are aware of the facilities amounting to Bangladesh Taka 38 Million extended by Citibank N.A to our subsidiary. Asian Paints (Bangladesh) Limited (herein referred to as "the Company") in addition to the facilities worth Bangladesh Taka 386 Million already extended by Citibank to this Company. The aforesaid company is viewed as a strategic investment for us in Bangladesh and we will continue to lend management and technical support to this company and will be fully supportive of its operations. We, Asian Paints Limited confirm that it is our intention to maintain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the obligations of the subsidiary are met with as and when they fall due. (v) Assurance to the bank that the assessee will not take any steps which permit the subsidiary to enter into liquidation or any arrangement with its creditors in a manner so as to prejudice the rights of the bank against the subsidiary in respect of the credit facility. 26. In the aforesaid facts, the first issue that arises for our consideration in respect of the impugned adjustment is whether the aforesaid letters of comfort issued by the assessee to the banks on behalf of some of its associated enterprises constitute an international transaction within the meaning of the Act. And if so, then it is to be decided as to what would be the ALP of the said international transaction. The term "international transaction" has been defined in section 92B of the Act as under:- "(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 207.70 4. Claims against the Company not acknowledged as debts i. Tax matters in dispute under appeal. ii. Others 63.15 7.38 29. Thus, from the aforesaid declaration by the assessee in its financial statement, it is discernible that the assessee has not only considered the corporate guarantees issued to certain banks on behalf of its subsidiaries as its contingent liability but has also considered the letters of comfort/support to banks on behalf of some of its subsidiaries as its contingent liability. It is pertinent to note that the corporate guarantees issued by the assessee have already been accepted to be an international transaction by the assessee in the present case. Such being the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the letters of comfort issued by the assessee in respect of the credit facility extended to its subsidiaries by the banks outside India, which has been admitted to be a liability by the assessee and thus have a bearing on the assets, constitutes an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. Further, in view of the aforesaid declaration, we find no merits in the submission of the assessee th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 928 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), more particularly Explanation I(c), we are of the considered opinion that provision of letter of comfort/support cannot be termed as an international transaction within the meaning of the aforesaid provision. Our aforesaid view is well supported by the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs. 3,28,280/-. This ground is allowed." 31. We find that similar findings were rendered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. However, in the present case, it is pertinent to note that the assessee, vide letters of comfort, not only undertook to use its best endeavour to see that the obligations of the subsidiary are met as and when they fall due but also treated the liability as a contingent liability in its financial statement. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the facts of the present case, as noted above, are different from the facts that were under consideration before the coordinate bench in the preceding years, and thus, the findings of the coordinate bench are not applicable to the present case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essed by the assessee. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed as not pressed. 27. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.841/Mum./2018 Revenue's Appeal - A.Y. 2013-14 28. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance on account of Letter of Comfort to 0.04% as against 0.50%, without appreciating the facts of the case or giving any cogent reason for doing the same." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A. O to verify the allowability of expenditure incurred u/s 35(2AB) without appreciating the fact that the expenditure was disallowed by DSIR (as per Certificate in Form No. 3CL) as the same was not incurred for R & D purpose." 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance @ 0.50% of damaged stock, in the closing stock of finished goods without appreciating the facts of the case." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5(2AB) of the Act. 31. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce the certificate issued by the Department of Science and Industrial Research ("DSIR") in Form No.3CL and reconciliation for the same. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that it has recognised R&D Unit at Turbhe (Navi Mumbai) and during the year claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act with respect to expenditures incurred for R&D activities. The assessee furnished the copy of approval received from DSIR obtained in Form No.3CM during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also furnished a copy of the certificate of expenditure in Form No.3CL received from the DSIR. The assessee also provided a copy of the reconciliation between the amounts claimed in the return of income vis-a-vis the claim allowed by the DSIR. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was also asked to show cause why the differential amount as per Form No.3CL be not disallowed, which was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this case, however, shows that the expenditure on R & D was bifurcated by the prescribed authority as per it's certificate in two parts, one incurred in-house and the other incurred outsider. Relying on the said certificate, the Revenue disallowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee outside its in-house facilities while the Tribunal allowed the same. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that merely because the prescribed authority segregated expenditure into two parts by itself could not be sufficient to deny the benefit to the assessee u/s 35(2AB). The issue involved the in the case of Cadila Health Care ltd. (supra) thus was entirely different and even the facts involved in the said case were different from the facts of the assessee's case in as much as the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee in that case on R & D was duly certified by the prescribed authority whereas in the case of the assessee, the same is not certified to be eligible R & D expenditure to the extent of Rs. 54.34 lakhs. 14. The le Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the decision of the Ah....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid decision and no change in facts and law was alleged in the relevant assessment year. Since the learned CIT(A) has decided the issue keeping in view the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal, therefore we find no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 36. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to restricting the disallowance of damaged stock in the valuation of the closing stock. 37. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, from the perusal of the annual report, it was observed that damaged, unserviceable, and inert stock was depreciated by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause why the value of damaged stock be not added to closing stock. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that while loading and unloading, many a time, the tins containing paints get damaged. The level of damage for each tin varies from others. It was submitted that hence it is very difficult to ascertain the value of such damaged tin while valuing the closing stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same. Considering the fact on record and also this method is consistently followed by the assessee over the years there is no loss to the revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 40. We find that similar findings were rendered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the assessment year 2012-13. The learned DR could not show us any reason to deviate from the aforesaid decision and no change in facts and law was alleged in the relevant assessment year. Since the learned CIT(A) has decided on the issue following the decisions of the coordinate bench in the preceding years, therefore we find no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 41. The issue arising in ground no.4, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to disallowance under section 14A of the Act. In view of our findings rendered in assessee's appeal on a similar issue, ground no.4 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 42. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2010-11 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. While holding so the Coordinate Bench held as under: - "035. Ground number 6 is in relation to allowing the additional depreciation at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs 1,51,65,251/-. The claim of the assessee is that according to the provisions of Section 32 (1) (iiia) the assessee is eligible to claim 20% additional depreciation on any Machinery or plant, acquired after 31st of March 2005. As per the proviso to Section, if the assessee has put to use it for less than 1 80 days in a previous year, the deduction in respect of depreciation shall be restricted to 50%. The assessee has already claimed 10% of the additional depreciation in financial year 2008-2009 (assessment year 2009-10) and therefore it claimed that balance 10% of the depreciation should be allowed to the assessee in financial year 2010-11. 036. The learned assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee holding that there is no such provision to claim balance 10% additional depreciation in subsequent years for addition made in earlier year. In past year learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rival submissions and perused materials on record. The facts on record clearly reveal that assessee had purchased and installed new plant and machinery in the preceding assessment year, which is eligible for additional depreciation @20%. However, since the new assets were put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding assessment year, the claim of additional depreciation allowable at 20% was restricted to half of it, i.e. 50%. Thus, in effect, the assessee was allowed additional depreciation of 10%. Now, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that if for use of new plant and machinery for a period of less than 180 days the entire amount of additional depreciation cannot be claimed in the subject assessment year, the balance unclaimed amount can be claimed in the subsequent assessment year. It is also a fact on record, against similar claim allowed by learned Commissioner Appeals) in assessee's own case in Assessment Year 2008- 29, the revenue has not preferred any appeal before the bunal. In view of the above, we uphold the decision of Jeaned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed. 038. Therefore, respectfully following the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO held that the expenditure was incurred for the pure leisure trip for the dealers and accordingly cannot be said to have been expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 83,53,74,861. Further, in the alternative, the AO held that even if these expenditures are considered in the nature of commission paid by the assessee directly to its dealers, in the absence of deduction of TDS under section 194H, these expenses are disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 49. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue by following the decision of its predecessor in assessee's own case. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 50. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We find that while deciding a similar issue in favour of the assessee the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ACIT v/s Asian Paints Ltd., in ITA No. 4675/Mum/2015, for the assessment year 2010-11, vide order dated 23/02/2022, observed as under:- "041. It is also stated before us that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ITA 1616/2011-Bombay High Court 2. Pr. GT vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 702 of 12017-Bombay High Court 3. DOT vs. BCH Electric Ltd. (ITA 1336/Kol/2012) 4. ACIT vs. Raymond Ltd. ITA 5889/M/10 5. CIT vs. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. 230 Taxman 505 (Bom) 6. CIT vs. Qatar Airways 332 ITR 253 (Bom) 7. Radhasaomi Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321 (SC) 47. Without prejudice, the learned Counsel submitted, since no amount has been paid or credited to the distributors, question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Further, he submitted, whatever amount the assessee has paid to SOTC has been subjected to TDS provisions. Therefore, there cannot be any further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, he submitted, the expenditure incurred is purely for the purpose of business as it is in the nature of an incentive linked to quantum of purchases made by the dealer. Finally, he submitted, the assessee is claiming such deduction for past 20 years. Except the impugned assessment year, the expenditure has never been disallowed. Therefore, there is no reason to deviate in the impugned assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding assessment years. The learned DR could not show us any reason to deviate from the aforesaid decision and no change in facts and law was alleged in the relevant assessment year. Thus, respectfully following the judicial precedents in assessee's own case cited supra, ground no.6 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 52. The issue arising in ground no.7, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the deletion of addition on account of waiver of Royalty received from two subsidiaries. 53. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee has various associated enterprises all over the globe situated in various countries from which income in the form of Royalty is received for providing them with "Brand Name" along with other technical support. The Royalty is calculated @3% of associated enterprises' sales as per the agreement duly signed and executed. However, for the year under consideration, the assessee partly waived the Royalty income receivable from two of its subsidiary companies situated in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that it had an agreement with its indirect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Asian Paints (Lanka) Ltd, according to which the assessee was to receive a Royalty of 3% of net sales. However, considering the financial position of the group companies, the assessee agreed to waive the charges of the Royalty until the subsidiary company achieves breakeven. As a result, during the year under consideration, the assessee has accounted for Royalty income at 1% net sales basis and received Royalty income of Rs. 24,18,244 from Asian Paints (Lanka) Ltd and Rs. 92,54,784 from Asian Paints (Bangladesh) Ltd. It is pertinent to note that the assessee declared the aforesaid international transaction pertaining to the receipt of Royalty income from its subsidiaries in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Form 3CEB and benchmarked the same by comparing it with the rate of Royalty charged to overseas subsidiaries. Undisputedly, the TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act did not make any transfer pricing adjustment on account of the aforesaid international transaction. However, the AO, by placing reliance upon the findings of its predecessor in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12, held that the legitimate right to receive corresponding income (Royalty) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed. 57. The issue arising in ground no.8, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to allowance of Corporate Social Responsibility ("CSR") expenses. 58. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed the deduction of Rs. 39.41 lakh under section 37(1) of the Act on CSR expenses. The AO disallowed the aforesaid expenditure on the basis that the assessee has neither proved any commercial expediency nor any obligation towards the school and other purposes. However, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order allowed these expenditures on the basis that similar expenditure was allowed in assessee's own case in the assessment years 2005-06 and 2012-13. It was further held that the Explanation-2 to section 37(1) of the Act was introduced from 01/04/2015 and is prospective in nature, therefore CSR expenditures incurred prior thereto are allowable expenditures. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT v/s PEC Ltd., [2023] 146 taxmann.com 407 (Delhi) held that amendment brought by way of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014, with effect from 1-4-2015 is pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... written off is claimed as deduction, and sundry balances written back is offered for tax in its return of income. The assessee submitted that the expenditure is normal business expenditure and allowable as deductible expenditure. However, from the perusal of the record, we find that neither there is an examination of the aforesaid claim of the assessee nor any details were furnished. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to file necessary details/documents in support of its claim of deduction of sundry balances written off. As a result, ground no.9 raised in Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes." 63. Since a similar issue has already been restored to the file of the AO in a similar factual matrix, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the AO with similar directions as rendered by the coordinate bench in the preceding year. As a result, ground no.9 raised in Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 64. The issue arising in ground no.10, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the deletion of the addition of subsidy received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onomic growth with an emphasis on balanced regional development and employment through greater public and private investment. Further, the Scheme classifies different areas within the State as Group A to Group D+ depending on the development and the specified areas. The Scheme also provides for various types of companies/products for setting up manufacturing facilities in the State of Maharashtra classified as Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises, LSI units, Mega Projects, etc. The Scheme also provides for various promotional and financial incentives, such as industrial Promotion Subsidy, Interest Subsidy, Exemption from Electricity Duty, Waiver of Stamp Duty, Royalty Refund, Refund of Octroi/Entry Tax in lieu of Octroi, etc. We find that as the assessee proposed to manufacture paints and intermediates at Kesurdi MIDC Area, District Satara, falling in "D" zone under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, wherein the assessee proposed to invest Rs. 735 crores and provide employment to 300 persons, the Government of Maharashtra vide letter dated 30/06/2009, forming part of the paper book from pages 211-212, conferred the status of "Mega Project" on the proposed project. We find that in ....