TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating the issue arised in this appeal as follows: Ground No. 1: Taxability of surplus on redemption of treasury bills as Interest Income under the head "Income from Other Source" instead of "Capital Gains" Rs.10,17,750: 3. In the return of income the assessee has offered the amount of Rs.10,17,750/- being surplus of repayment of treasury bills under the head capital gains. However, the AO has taxed the surplus as interest income under the head income from other sources. 4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel at the outset submitted that identical issue on similar facts in the earlier years has been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in the following cases: (a) ITAT-AY 2001-02 (ITA No. 4236/Mum/2005) (b) ITAT-AY 1999-00 (ITA No. 2125/Mum/2005) (c) ITAT-AY 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/2005) (d) ITATAY 1998-99 (ITA No. 9564/Mum/2004) (e) ITATAY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001) On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 6. Heard both the sid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest income" substantiating the views of the AO and not under the head "capital gain". After considering submissions of both the parties, we are not inclined to accept the submissions raised by the revenue that the surplus earned by the assessee cannot be treated as interest income and it is fact on record that assessee has held the treasury bills for certain period of time as investment and the surplus has to be taxed under the head "capital gain" and the same was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the contention of the Assessing Officer is accordingly rejected and we observe that Ld.CIT(A) has rejected claim made by the assessee that the redemption of such treasury bills is not a transfer. 68. Similar issue was considered by the Coordinate Bench in favour of the revenue for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 2230/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.2022 following the decision in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1995-96, held as under: - "21. In the books of account for the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee has shown Rs.1,48,47,037/- as surplus on redemption of treasury bills. The Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h expenditure was incidental to carrying of the business, therefore should be allowed as deduction. 8. The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) held that fines and penalties were not compensatory in nature, therefore, the same was not allowed as deduction. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. representative have brought to our noticed that the similar issue on identical facts has been adjudicated by the ITAT in the earlier years against the assessee. We find that the identical issue on similar facts has been adjudicated in the various decisions of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself against the assessee as follows: "(a) ITAT AY 1999-00 (ITA No. 2125/Mum/05) (b) ITAT AY 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/05) (c) ITATAY 1998-99 (ITA No. 9564/Mum/2004) (d) ITATAY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001) (e) ITAT-AY 1994-95 (ITA No.3175/Mum/1999) (f) ITAT-AY 1993-94 (ITA No.2739/Mum/1999) Further we have perused the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee vide ITA No. 2125/Mum/2005 dated 28.11.2023. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We find that similar issue on identical fact has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of assessee itself vide ITA No. 3493/Mum/1999 (A.Y. 1995-96), 1781/Mum/2000 (1996- 97), 5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y. 1997-98), 8952/Mum/2004 (1998- 99). 41. Following the decision, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. Following the decision of the ITAT as referred supra we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. Ground No.4(a): Disallowance of Interest attributable to earning of exempt Income of Rs.7,35,812/-: 14. During the course of assessment the assessing officer noticed that assessee received exempt income in the form of dividend of Rs.59,23,06,473/- and income from mutual funds amounting to Rs.784,92,422/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act. The assessee explained that investment yielding tax free income was made out of the non-interest-bearing funds of the assessee. However, assessing officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and stated that assesse has utilised funds from a common pool of funds therefore, AO has worked out an amount of Rs. 1,02,87,455....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e record. We notice that the view taken by Ld CIT(A) gets support from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505) (Bom). The jurisdictional Bombay High Court has held in the above said case that the interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) of I T Rules is not called for when the own funds available with the assessee is in excess of the value of investments. In our view, the ratio of the said decision shall apply to the facts of the present issue. Accordingly, we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue." 55. Since, the assessee was having more interest free funds then the amount of investment made on which the exempt income was earned, therefore, following the decision of coordinate bench on the identical issue on similar fact as discussed supra we don't find any merit in this ground of appeal the revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed." The assessee was having more interest free funds than amount of investment made on which the exempt income was earned, therefore, following the decision of ITAT as discussed supra, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 4(b):....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the ITAT which is as under: (a) ITAT-AY 2001-02 (ITA No.4236/Mum/05) (b) ITAT-AY 1999-00 (ITA No. 2125/Mum/05) (c) ITAT-AY 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/05) (d) ITAT-AY 1998-99 (ITA No. 9564/Mum/2004) (e) ITAT-AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001) (f) ITAT-AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/ 2000) (g) ITAT AY 1995-96 (ITA No. 3493/Mum/1999) (h) Punj Sons (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (74 TTJ 596) (Del) The ld. D.R supported the order of the lower authorities. 24. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We have perused the decision of the ITAT vide ITA No. 4236/Mum/2005. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: "52. With regard to Ground No. 4 which is in respect of disallowance of wealth-tax payment, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the issue in appeal has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this tribunal in assessee's own case and decided the issue in favour of the assesse and against the department." It is evident that same issue on identical facts has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in the earlier years therefore following the decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing officer has treated the software expenses as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation @ 25% thereon. 30. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the action of the assessing officer for treating the software expenses as capital expenditure. 31. During the course of appellate proceedings before us at the outset the ld. Counsel submitted that software expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. He also submitted that the decision of special bench in the case of Amway India Enterprises 111 ITD 112 relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) was reversed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Amway India Enterprises (2012) 22 taxmann.com 22 (Delhi). The ld. counsel has also referred the decision of Asahi Safety Glass Ltd. Vs. CIT(2011) 15 taxmann.com 382 (Delhi). The ld. Counsel also referred page no. 193-194 of the factual paper book and submitted that list placed in the paper book showed that all the software expenses are of the nature of revenue expenditure. On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 32. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia and Nepal. (ii) associate with the reputation and image of the "Bajaj name in the Indian market and (iii) to get a 26% participation in the insurance business. It is submitted that since the amounts have been received for (i) restrictions to carry on insurance business either on our own or in partnership with others resulting in non-compete covenants in the said business and (ii) to give a 26% participation in the insurance business the entire amount represents a non-taxable "Capital Receipt" and hence has been excluded from the total income." After considering the agreement dated 31.03.2001 executed by the assessee with Allianz A.G. Germany the assessing officer observed that the assessee was not in a position to bifurcate the amount it received from Allianz A.G. Germany under the various heads. The AO stated that amount has been received on account of the goodwill of the assessee and for using its sales and service infrastructure and referred para 17 of the notes forming part of the Accounts read as under: "Premium on Insurance Venture' represents the sum received from Allianz AG, the overseas partner in the new Insurance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess income of the assessee. 34. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) stated that the right of using the name of 'Bajaj' has got associated with Allianz, therefore, to that extent it constantly transfer of 'goodwill' and accordingly, portion of the consideration can rightly be appropriated towards goodwill which would be taxed under the head capital gain. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) held that the amount of Rs.117 crores will have to be bifurcated between non-compete and transfer of goodwill. The ld. CIT(A) further stated that in the absence of break-up of the consideration received the assessing officer has rightly divided the total consideration equally into two parts. However, after considering he nature of payment and material available on record the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the amount allocated towards goodwill to the amount of Rs.33.60 crores as under: Nature of Payment For general Insurance Business (Amt. In crores) For Life Business (Amt. in Crores) Total For Non Compete Covenants 15.4 45 60.4 Associate the word 'Bajaj' (Goodwill) 5 10 15 For agreeing not to make available Sales and Service infrastructure (N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue and goodwill of bajaj which is of strategic advantage to the success of the Company (iii) The commitment by Bajaj to make Allianz its partner in general insurance business, in India and Bhutan. (iv) Agreeing not to enter into any agreement or arrangement with any other party for carrying out any general insurance business in India and Bhutan during the subsistence of the proposed JV Agreement between the Parties. (v) Subject to the governing laws, agreeing to make Allianz an equal partner as and when permitted. Article 3 of the agreement say that the Bajaj agreed that in consideration for receiving a sum of Rs.45 crores from Allianz AG it will allow the Allianz in general insurance business as under: "(i) allow Allianz to participate in the general insurance business of he Company in India by associating itself with the reputation, value and goodwill of Bajaj which is of strategic advantage to the success of the Company. (ii) commit to make Allianz its partner in general insurance business in India and Bhutan. (iii) agree not to enter into any agreement or arrangement with any other party for carrying out any general insu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties as demonstrated from the findings of the AO and CIT(A) the assessee had failed to provide bifurcation of the total amount received for the different purposes including the amount towards the "Goodwill". The assessee has not brought any material on record to disprove that the component of 117 crores of rupees not included any amount towards value and goodwill of 'Bajaj' provided by the Allianz as specified in the agreements executed for insurance business in India. The assessee had itself not carried out any business of Insurance independently from the joint venture but allowed the use of value and Goodwill of 'Bajaj' as a strategic advantage on the formation of Joint Venture in the Insurance business against the consideration received as discussed above. In the light of the above facts and circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere in the decisions of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee stand dismissed. Ground No. 9: Including wind power generated captively consumed in the total turnover while computing deduction under Sec. 80HHC: Rs.21,14,53,394/-: 37. During the course of assessment the assessing officer included the amount of Rs.21,1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 80HHC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed this exclusion of the scrap sales from the turnover in a very detail manner. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the scrap sale from the total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC. Thus, ground no.18 is treated as allowed." Following the decision of ITAT as referred supra we find that decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining of disallowance is not justified, therefore, after following the decision of ITAT this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Ground No.10: Including miscellaneous receipts in respect of scrap sales, miscellaneous scrap sales and sundry sales in the total turnover while computing deduction u/s section 80HHC: Rs.21,16,24,544/-: 41. The assessing officer has included the miscellaneous receipts like scrap sales, miscellaneous scrap sale and sundry sales aggregating to Rs.21,16,24,544/- in the total turnover. 42. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) as rejected the claim of the assessee. 43. During the course of appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the assessee is allowed. Ground No.11: Exclusion of 90% of the following from the profits of the business while computing deduction under section 80HHC: a. Technical know-how: Rs.1,87,25,795 b. Insurance claims: Rs. 31,17,549 c. Miscellaneous receipts: Rs.13,92,02,699 d. Sundry Credit Balance: Rs.69,42,424 e. Provision no longer required: Rs.13,24,46,978 f. Bad Debts recovered: Rs.1,08,074 45. During the course of assessment the assessing officer has reduced 90% of the following items from profit of the business for computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. (i) Technical know-how fees - Rs.1,87,25,795/- (ii) Insurance claims - Rs.31,17,549/- (iii) Miscellaneous Receipts - Rs.13,92,02,699/- (iv) Sundry credit balance appropriated - Rs.69,42,424/- (v) Provision no longer required - Rs.13,24,46,978/- (vi) Bad Debts recovered - Rs.1,08,074/- 46. The assesse filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The action of the assessing officer was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 47. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that identical is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 53. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The facts and findings on the issue of taxability is not fully discussed in the order of the assessing officer and the CIT(A) therefore we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer to decide the same after examination in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). Therefore this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 2899/Mum/2010 (Revenue's appeal) Ground No.1: Allowing deduction under Sec. 35D of the Act in respect of GDR issue expenses: Rs.1,17,19,960/-: 54. The assessee incurred expenses in connection with the issue of Global Depository Receipts (GDR) in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1995-96 to the amount of RS.3,45,06,99,697/-. The assessee made alternative claim to allow proportionate deduction of such expenditure u/s 35D of the Act. The assessee claimed that deduction u/s 35D in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is placed on record, Letter dated 11 February 2000 submitted before the Assessing Officer. 49. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - a) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (162 ITR 819) b) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1463/Ahd/2007 c) S.S.I. Limited vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) (Chn) 50. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 51. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, from the submissions of the parties, we observe that the assessee has incurred expenses in connection with the issue of GDR and these expenses are allowable only when new or expansion of industrial undertaking. During the current Assessment Year, the assessee has completed the expansion of the Industrial undertaking, the expenses are allowable deduction u/s 35D of the Act, since the expenses are incurred during previous AY and expansion was completed only this AY, the relevant expenses are allowable in this Assessment Year. In the similar facts, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s - Rs.128.93 crores) and 2.5% of such cost works out to Rs.1.35 crores. Therefore 10 % of this amount of Rs.1.35 crores at Rs.13.5 lacs was allowed by the Assessing Officer under section 35D. 25.The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 26.The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee has been allowed the identical claim since 1995-96 by the Income-tax Department and it is only in the impugned year where the Department has doubted its decision when there is no change of the facts and circumstances of the case. 27.The learned DR, on the other hand, argued that res judicata does not apply. 28.We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. From the reading of the provisions contained in section 35D and the arguments of both the parties, we are of the view that there are no change in the facts as in the last 7 years and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RadhaSoamiSatsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. Therefore, in the circumstances and facts of the case, we direct the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssets leased to JCT Limited. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Lease agreement with JCT Limited dated 26 March 1996 - BAL purchased assorted items of equipments at the original cost of purchase, i.e.Rs..6,92,22,335/-- The assets were leased back to JCT. Further, he brought to our notice the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 1996-97 and by referring to Para No.24 he submitted that depreciation on such assets claimed and allowed by the order of the Tribunal in the earlier year by dismissing the revenue ground in AY 1996-97. During the year under consideration, BAL has claimed depreciation on the opening written down value of the block which includes the above assets. Once depreciation allowed in earlier year and such asset forms part of block of assets, depreciation ought to be allowed in subsequent years. for the above proposition he relied on the following case law: (a) Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the findings of CIT(A) need not be reproduced. 25.4 We find that in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, wherein after the sale of asset the same asset was leased back to the Punjab State Electricity Board and the Electricity Board claimed deduction in respect of lease rental, the Department allege that sale of asset to third party and the same asset being taken on lease for claiming deduction in respect of lease rental is a colorable device to reduce tax liability and have denied the same. The Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding the transaction of sale and lease back of asset as genuine. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court raising following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that in the present case/ no colourable device has been adopted by the assesses, even when the intention of the assessee behind drafting the agreements between the assessee and the financial institution was to reduce the tax liability artificially of both the parties and as such the ratio of the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the facts of this case, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed." 25.5 Thus, the Hon'ble Court held that lease agreement where the asset is leased back to the vendor is not a ploy to reduce tax incidence and is an accepted arrangement. In view of our above findings, we see no merit in Ground No.11 raised by the Revenue, hence, the same is dismissed." 59. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1996-97 is respectfully followed and the issue involved in relation to transaction with JCT Ltd are similar to the above findings in relation to transaction with PSEB, accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 11. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y.1997-98 is respectfully followed, accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." Following the decision of ITAT as referred supra we don't find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. Gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in nature in the books of account, but claimed the same as revenue expenditure for income tax purposes. This is a recurring issue. The co-ordinate bench has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by confirming the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) in holding that the expenditure incurred in purchase of dies and moulds are allowable as revenue expenditure in AY 1990-91. The said decision is being followed year after year. In AY 1997-98 also in ITA No.5030/Mum/2001 dated 13.04.2023, the Tribunal has upheld the identical decision taken by Ld CIT(A). Consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate benches year after year, we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) in holding that the expenditure incurred on Dies and Moulds is allowable as deduction. 35. Therefore, following the decision of ITAT, we do not find any infirmity in the CIT(A) order. Therefore, this ground appeal of the revenue stand dismissed." Following the decision of ITAT as discussed above, we don't find any merit in this ground of appeal the revenue therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 4: Allowing penalty charges recovered from suppliers of capital goods as capital receipts and therefore no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted this expenditure as capital expenditure and disallowed the claim of deduction as revenue expenditure. 67. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) following the decision of earlier years of the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee by treating the same as revenue in nature. 68. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. counsel also submitted that similar claim on identical fact has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench of the ITAT in the earlier years as under: (a) ITAT-AY 2001-02 (ITA No. 4236/Mum/05) (b) ITATAY 1999-00 (ITA No. 2125/Mum/05) (c) ITATAYA 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/05) (d) ITAT AY 1998-99 (ITA No. 8952/Mum/2004) (e) ITAT-AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001) (f) ITAT AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/2000) (g) ITAT AY 1995-96 (ITA No.3493/Mum/1999) (h) ITAT-AY 1994-95-(ITA No.6964/Mum/2014) (i) ITAT-AY 1993-94-(ITA No.6963/Mum/2014) (j) ITAT-AY 1991-92-(ITA No.6324/Mum/2010) (k) ITAT-AY 1990-91-(ITA No.6325/Mum/2010) (l) CIT vs. TVS Motors Ltd [2014] 364 ITR 1 (Mad) (Ratio app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t find any merit in this ground of appeal the revenue therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 7: Allowing deduction for Prior period expenses: Rs.2,93,02,863/-: 72. During the year under consideration the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.2,93,02,863/- pertaining to earlier years but debited to the profit and loss account in the previous year relevant to the year under consideration. The AO has rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that each year is a self-contained unit and only expenses of that year can be claimed or allowed as a deduction. 73. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that such expenses had always been allowed in the year in which these were debited. Therefore, keeping in view the similar issue of earlier year, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction. 74. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that these expenses were crystalised during the year and accordingly, the same was debited to the profit and loss account for the year under consideration. He also referred that similar issue was decided in the case of the assessee itself i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of appeal the revenue therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground No.8: Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) in respect of expenditure incurred in foreign currency: 75. During the year the assessee has incurred expenditure in foreign currency of Rs.10,50,842/- on which tax was not deducted at source. The assessing officer has disallowed the same u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. 76. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee holding that due to nature of expenditure no deduction of any tax at is required. 77. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that assesse has incurred expenditure in foreign currency in respect of drawing and designing charges of Rs.6,35,107/- and annual maintenance contract for software related R & D activity of Rs.4,15,735/- on which TDS was not deducted. We find that ld. CIT(A) has considered this fact that in both the cases the payments were made to the parties who were non-resident and were not having any permanent establishment in India, therefore, no TDS was deducted. We have also considered that similar issue on identical fact has been decided in favour of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced before us, From the perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the AO has nowhere mentioned that the assessee is the owner of the extended electricity line to the assessee's Waluj unit. On the other hand the AO observed "the capital contribution was made for creating special EHV supply facilities to assessee's requirements. The expenditure is certainly in the nature of providing enduring advantage' over a period of several years". The learned DR has not brought on record any evidence to establish that the assessee is the owner of the electricity line from Aurangabad sub-station to the assessee's unit. The learned counsel for the assessee made a statement at Bar that the assessee is not the owner of the said electricity line and has not claimed any depreciation on this payment of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-. This statement made at Bar remain uncontroverted. In view of these facts, we hold that the assessee is not the owner of the electricity line, for which the assessee made the payment of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-." After considering the above facts and finding we don't find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) Vivek Engineering & Casting Ltd [2016] 383 ITR 480 (Calcutta) 85. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that interest income of inter corporate deposit had been assessed as business income. Further as per object clause of the memorandum of association produced at para 8.2 of the assessment order it is clear that money lending was a part of the business activity of the assessee. Further ld. CIT(A) has also referred in his finding that the assessee has constantly shown interest received on inter corporate deposit as business income and same was assessed as business income. The relevant extract of the decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "20.12 I have considered the facts of the case and I have also gone through the facts on record. In the return of income and even in the assessment order passed for current year and earlier years the interest received on inter corporate deposits was assessed as 'Business Income'. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the appellant is in the business of the money lending Merely because the appellant was not required to be registered with RBI as NBFC and was not liable to pay inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-compute the trading profits for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC. 90. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that similar issue on identical fact has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself in the earlier years referred by the ld. Counsel as under: "(a) ITAT-AY 1999-00 (ITA No. 2125/Mum/05) (b) ITAT-AY 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/05) (c) ITAT AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001) (d) ITAT AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/2000) (e) ITAT AY 1995-96 (ITA No. 3493/Mum/1999) (f) Surendra Engg. Corprn. vs. ACIT [2003] 86 ITD 121 (Mum) (SB) (g) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Exports vs. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 454 (SC)" The extract of the decision of ITAT for AY 2000-01vide ITA No. 3055/Mum/2005 is reproduced as under: "108. During the course of appellate proceeding before us at the outset the ld. Counsel submitted that identical issue and similar fact has been adjudicated by the ITAT in favour of the assessee in the preceding assessment year as under: a. ITAT - AY 1995-96 (ITA No. 3493/Mum/1999, para no. 19-22, pag....