TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in points of law and facts. 2) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant company's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance out of interest expenses U/S.14A of lncome-tax Act. for Rs. 6,46.673/-. 3)In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant company's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in partly confirming disallowance of administrative expenses and payment to employees for Rs. 2.95,050/- u/s.!4A of Income-tax Act. 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the expense for power project Rs. 8,80,589 accounted in Acct. Year 2007-08 but pertaining to Asst. Year 2006-07 are to be allowed. 5) Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time. 3. The assessee vide later dated 16th February 2021 raised the following additional ground of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, education cess and secondary & higher education cess ('education cess') paid on income tax and surcharge during the yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n connection with the exempted income which are not allowable under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. In effect, the AO has made the addition of the following expenses: i. Interest expenses Rs. 6,46,673/- ii. Administrative expenses Rs. 47,54,674 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 7.1 The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the borrowed fund, from the companies being sister concerns namely Nirma Soaps and Detergents Private Ltd and Navin Detergent Private Ltd, has been utilized for the purpose of making the repayment of inter-corporate deposits. Thus the finding of the AO that borrowed fund has been used for making the investments is wrong. 8. The learned CIT (A) found that the assessee has made investments of Rs.15.60 crores in shares and securities. Likewise, the assessee has incurred huge interest expenses of Rs. 4,07,63,094/-. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) was of the view that there must have been utilized borrowed fund against the investments. Therefore, the disallowance for the interest expenses is warranted. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO by confirming the disallowance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of the assessee. Therefore such expense has to be excluded while allocating the administrative expenses between the exempted and non-exempted income. The learned AR in support of his contention has filed a working demonstrating the correct bifurcations of administrative expenses between exempted and non-exempted income which is placed on record. As per the learned AR, an amount of Rs. 2,89,107/- stands to be allocated to the exempted income which is liable to be disallowed. 11. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the authorities below by reiterating the findings contained in the respective orders which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 12. Both the ld. AR and the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As regards the dispute with respect to the interest expense, we note that owned fund of the assessee exceeds the investment made in the securities. The amount of own fund of the assessee as on 31st ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was not incurred any expense against the dividend income. 13.3 As regards to the allocation of the administrative expenses based on exempted and non-exempted income by the Revenue, we find that the basis adopted by the authorities below have not been challenged by the assessee. But what was alleged by the assessee is this that amount of administrative expense was wrongly taken by the authorities below. As per the assessee, the correct amount of administrative expenses stands at Rs. 64,01,125/- which has not been challenged by the learned DR at the time of hearing. Accordingly, we hold that the amount of expense towards the administrative division stands at Rs. 2,89,107 which could be allocated to exempted income. 13.4 The next aspect arises whether the amount of capital gain represents the exempted income. In this regard we find that for claiming the exemption of long term capital gain on share or securities under section 10(38), it is prerequisite that on transfer of such share or securities, Securities Transaction Tax must have been paid, but in the present case of the assessee, same has not been done. Rather the learned CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as pleaded by the assessee in the application filed for the admission of the additional ground of appeal that the issue raised in the additional ground of appeal go to the root of the matter and the necessary facts are available on record. Accordingly, it was prayed by the learned AR for the assessee that the same should be admitted for adjudication. 19. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed to admit the additional ground of appeal on the reasoning that it was not raised before the authorities below. 20. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited vs. CIT, cited supra, has held as under:- "Under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing in section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. 28. In the Income-tax Act, 1922, section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession'. In the corresponding Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 the expression "cess" is quite conspicuous by its absence. In fact, legislative history bears out that this expression was in fact to be found in the Income-tax Bill, 1961 which was introduced in the Parliament. However, the Select Committee recommended the omission of expression "cess" and consequently, this expression finds no place in the final text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The effect of such omission is that the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) does not include, "cess" and consequently, "cess" whenever paid in relation to business, is allowable as deductable expenditure." 20.3 Likewise, the Hon'ble Rajasthan HC in case of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 484 has held under: "13. On the third issue in appeal no. 52/2018, in view of the circular of CBDT where word "Cess" is deleted, in our considered opin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards" Basis above, in absence of word "cess", it is a settled principle observed by the Apex court in case of Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal that in a given case the Court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation." 20.6 Likewise, we note that the Hon'ble SC in case of K Srinivasan pertains to surcharge and not the cess. The aforesaid SC judgment pertains to the allowability of surcharge and additional surcharge. The word 'cess' has no mention in the judgment. The Kolkata ITAT in case of Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. (supra) relied on the aforesaid SC judgement and considered the term 'education cess' as an additional surcharge while disallowing the same as deductible expense. The Hon'ble SC in case of Goodyear India Ltd. v State of Haryana (Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 781, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 510) observed that a precedent is an authority only for what it actually de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O on account of accrued interest and interest on deep discount bond held and sold during the year by the assessee. 22.1 The assessee has acquired the Deed Discount Bonds (DDB) and OFCPN in the earlier years, the details of which stand as under: S. No. Particular Allotment date Quantity Purchase value Maturity date Maturity value 1. DDB of Nirma Ltd. 29-03-2001 400 Rs. 400 cr. 28-08-2008 Rs. 600 cr. 2. OFCPN of Agarwal Estate Organizer Pvt. Ltd. 24-03-2001 11 Rs. 11 cr. 23-08- 2006 Rs. 24 cr. 22.2 The assessee during the year under consideration has transferred/sold 175 DDB of Nirma Ltd and all the OFCN of Aggarwal Estate Organizer Pvt. Ltd. In the year under consideration, there were balance 225 DDB of Nirma Ltd which were held by the assessee. The assessee on transfer of DDB and OFCPN offered capital gain whereas no interest income was offered on remaining 225 DDB of the NIRMA Ltd. held by it (the assessee). 22.3 As per the CBDT circular bearing No. 2 of 2002 issued on 15 February 2002, the assessee being the holder of deep discount bonds requires to value these bonds at the end of the accounting year in accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is seen that the assessee has claimed to have sold 175DDBS for Rs. 208.21,76,465/- in F.Y.2005-06. These 175DDBS were purchased for an amount of Rs. 175.00,00,000/- On these transactions, the assessee has claimed profit of Rs. 33,21,76,465/- under the head long term capital gain. As discussed above, the income arising out of transactions of DDBs has to be assessed as interest income. In the assessment proceedings for earlier years of this assessee, interest income on these DDBs has been worked out on accrual basis only. Accordingly vide hearing dated 20.11.2008, the assessee was asked to clarify as to why profit arising on sale of DDBs of Nirma Ltd. and Agarwal Estate & Organisers Ltd. be not treated as interest income. "Please furnish proof regarding sale of Nirma DDBs & OFCDDBs of Agarwal Estate & Organisers. Explain as to why the profit arising therefrom be not treated as interest income," The assessee has relied upon the claims made by it in earlier year on this issue. The stand of the department has been discussed in detail above. Therefore, the income arising from these transactions are being treated as interest income and income is being assessed according....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from these transactions of Rs. 6,50,00,000/- have been claimed as long term capital gain. As discussed above, the income arising out of transactions of DDBs has to be assessed as interest income. In the assessment proceedings for earlier years of this assessee, interest income on these DDBs has been worked out on accrual basis only. Accordingly vide hearing dated 20.11.2008, the assessee was asked to clarify as to why profit arising on sale of DDBs of Nirma Ltd. and Agarwal Estate & Organisers Ltd. be not treated as interest income. The assessee has relied upon the claims made by it in earlier year on this issue. The stand of the department has been discussed in detail above. Therefore, the income arising from these transactions are being treated as interest income and income is being assessed accordingly. The assessee has claimed in its submission that since the department has already taxed the interest on accrual basis on these 11DDBs in earlier year, the deduction of equivalent amount be allowed in relevant financial year. The contention of the assessee is not accepted. The assessee has been claiming that the interest income is not chargeable to tax in those years and the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istently deleted by learned CIT(A) in the Appeal. 4.4 It is further seen that appellant has declared income earned on the transfer of these DDBs under the head long term capital gain. I find that facts of this case is covered by the case of Karsanbhai Khodidas Patel HUF in ITA No. 1042/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 2002-03 dtd. 910-2009. The concluding para of this order is reproduced as under. "26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is right in claiming that the capital gains arising on the sale of the deep discount bonds should be assessed as long term capital gains on the footing that he. h&ld them for a period of more than 12 months starting-, from 23-9-2000 before they were sold on 20-3-2002. Consequently, we also hold that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54EC as claimed. Thus both ground Nos. 2 and 3 are allowed." 4.5 Since these DDBs were held by the appellant for more than twelve months, accordingly, these DDBs are capital asset in the hands of the appellant. Respectfully, following the above mentioned ITAT order, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the Ld. A.R. Income earned on transfer of 11 DD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in favour of the assessee by the order of this tribunal in the own cases of the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03 in ITA Nos. 1243/Ahd/2006 vide order dated 15th February 2013. The relevant extract reads as under: 5.4.1. At this point of time, we would like to recall that a similar issue to that of the present issue has been considered by the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kishan Discretionary Family Trust v. ACIT in ITA No. 1850/Ahd/2007 dated 2.11.2007 [courtesy: P 7-61 of PB - 'B']. The relevant portion of the finding of the Tribunal is as under: "(On Page 65) 27. Therefore, the assessee on its part, in our opinion, succeeded in establishing the change of bona fide because it has ceased to have any business income and had adopted the change well before the search as well as completion of assessment for block period and also before coming of Circular of No. 2 of 2002 on the Statute. Since the assessee has .followed the same system in all the subsequent years, we see no reason as to the assessee's choice/preference to adopt the changed system of accounting be not accepted. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d above have been set aside / stayed or overruled by the higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, the Revenue has not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case for the year under consideration and that of earlier years nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. Hence, respectfully following the principles laid down by the ITAT in the own case of the assessee (supra), we uphold the order of the learned CIT (A) with the direction to the AO to delete the addition made by him. Thus, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 27. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the disallowance of the administrative expenses to Rs. 2,95,050/- instead of upholding the disallowance made by the AO at Rs. 47,54,674/- under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. 28. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated along with the ground of appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1054/Ahd/2012 vide paragraph No. 13 of this order. The ground of appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed by us. For the detailed discussion, please refer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 (All.) (iv)CIT v/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd. 274 ITR 354 (All.) It will also be pertinent to note here that the Ld A.O. in this regard had placed reliance on the case of CIT vs Abhishek Industries Ltd., reported at 286 ITR 1 (P & H). In this regard it is observed that the observations made in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd., stands reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Munjal Sales Corporation reported at 298 ITR 298. Thus, as on today reliance cannot be placed on the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd..(supra). In view of the above decisions, I hold that the A.O. was not justified in disallowing interest without establishing nexus between interest bearing funds and interest free funds advanced to sister concerns. 9.6 It is well settled law that burden is on the revenue to prove that any part of borrowed funds was diverted to non business use. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the following case laws; i) Shhadiram & Sons v/s. DCIT 92 ITD 22 ii) Modipon Ltd. v/s.lTO 22 TTJ 108 iii) JCIT v/s. Sterisheets Ltd. 106 TTJ 460 It is noticed that the A.O. had miserably failed to discharge h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly, disallowance of Rs. 2,05,49,614/- is ordered to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 31. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 32. Both the learned DR and the learned counsel for the assessee before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 33. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we note that the own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of interest free loan and advances provided by it. The own fund of the assessee as on 31st March 2006 stands at Rs. 571 crores whereas interest-free loans and advances stand at Rs. 274.16 crores. Accordingly a presumption can be drawn that the assessee has provided interest-free loan advances out of its own fund. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd reported in 363 ITR 474 where it was held as under: It was noted from records that the assessee was having share holding funds to the extent of 2607.18 crores and the investment made by it was to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts recorded by the assessee in the books of accounts on account of sale purchase of securities. Effectively the assessee has shown a gross loss of Rs. 7,03,98,623/- with respect to all the transactions of sale purchase of the securities. In other words, the impugned amount of profit of Rs. 375 lakhs and loss of Rs. 1102.84 lakhs as discussed above was adjusted along with other transaction of sale purchase of shares. The net effect was the gross loss on the sale/ purchase of shares and securities as detailed under: Income Rs. 259684116 Sales of Shares & Securities Rs. 147081363 Closing Stock Rs. 147081363 Total Rs. 406765480 Expenditure Purchase of shares & Securities Rs. 267458424 Opening Stock Rs. 209705679 Total Rs. 477164103 Business Loss: Rs. 406765480-Rs. 477164103=Rs. 70398623 35.3 From the above, it is clear that impugned amount of gross loss shown by the assessee was solely attributable to the valuation of the shares of Shree RAMA Multitech Ltd. made at the end of the financial year which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 35.4 However, the AO during the assessment proceedings found that all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the assessee along with Nirma industries Ltd invoked pledge and received the shares of various companies. For invoking the pledge, a board resolution was passed which is available on record. 36.2 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) also filed the financial statements for the assessment year 2004-05 and further submitted that the net-worth of the companies of which OFCPN were acquired, were eroded. The action for the invocation of the pledge and receiving the shares of Shree Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. was challenged before the SEBI, SAT and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus it cannot be said that the transactions carried out by the assessee was sham and bogus in order to avoid the payment of tax. 36.3 The OFCPN acquired in the earlier years were duly admitted in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06. 36.4 There was full disclosure of the OFCPN acquired, receiving of shares in lieu of the OFCPN in the annual accounts of the company. The assessee in this connection drew attention of the learned CIT-A note No. 11 of the annual accounts. The assessee further submitted that the valuation of the shares of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds as under: 4.5 After going through the rival contentions and material on record, we find that Optionally Fully Convertible Promissory Notes (in short 'OFCPNs') were purchased on 25.03.2002 on the price shown in books and payments were made. It was treated as investment made and purchases were made from independent concerns not related to the assessee. The OFCPNs were sold on price indicated by the assessee and the sale claimed to be genuine. The sale was made to independent parties and there is nothing on record to suggest that they were related to the assessee as prescribed u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On these purchases and sale, the assessee suffered loss as indicated above. There was no evidence on record to suggest that the sale was made at lower price than the market rate and the balance amount was received back by the assessee. The assessee converted the investment into stock in trade and conversion was allowed under Income-tax Act. There is no legal bar for such conversion. If the assessee had not converted the investment into stock in trade, the total loss suffered would have been claimed as loss under short term/long term capital gain as the case may be. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Rs. 2.40.033/. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant company's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of administrative expenses and payment to employees Rs. 4,40,968/- u/s.! 4A of Income-tax Act. 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the expenses of * power project Rs. 23,78,182 should be allowed as deduction. 5) Your appellant craves liberty to add. alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time. 41. The assessee vide later dated 16th February 2021 raised following additional ground of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, education cess and secondary & higher education cess ('education cess') paid on income tax and surcharge during the year, ought to be allowed as a deductible expense under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') while computing the taxable income. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the issue raised by the assessee in its additional ground of appeal for the AY 2007-08 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1054/AHD/2012 for the assessment year 2006-07. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 1054/AHD/2012 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2006-07 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 20 of this order and allowed in favour of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2006-07 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 48.1 In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to ITA No. 1209/AHD/2012, an appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 49. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,61,02,956/-, being accrued interest on 225 Deep Discount Bonds of Nirma Ltd. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2006-07 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 54. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground 4 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 55. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2007-08 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1208/AHD/2012 for the assessment year 2006-07. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 1208/AHD/2012 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2006-07 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 33 of this order against the revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2006-07 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 56. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 5 & 6 are general in nature and do not re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However the AO worked the amount of disallowances under section 14A of the Act at Rs. 46,26,509/- as per the method prescribed by the CBDT in notification number 45/2008 dated 24th March 2008. Thus the AO made additional disallowances of Rs. 2,26,509 and added to the total income of the assessee. 62. Aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 3.3 During the appellate proceedings the appellant contended that the investment in equities has been made out of reserves and surplus,. which is a non-interest bearing funds available with the appellant. In view of this, it was contended that no disallowance against interest be made. After careful consideration, 1 am not inclined to agree with the contentions of the appellant, since the provisions of Sec. 14A(2) and 14A(3) had made disallowance of expenses U/S.14A mandatory. The appellant has also contended that interest expenses of Rs. 43,50,000/-had been disallowed by the appellant in the computation of income. It was contended that disallowance of interest in respect of this amount should not be made. After careful consideration I am not in agreement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd reported in 363 ITR 474 where it was held as under: It was noted from records that the assessee was having shareholding funds to the extent of 2607.18 crores and the investment made by it was to the extent of` Rs. 195.10 crores. In other words, the assessee had sufficient funds for making the investments and it had not used the borrowed funds for such purpose. This aspect of huge surplus funds is not disputed by the revenue which earned it the interest on bonds and dividend income. [Para 7] 66.1 In view of the above, we hold that there cannot be any disallowance of interest expenses. At this juncture, it is also important to note that the ITAT in the own case of the assessee in the earlier year in ITA No. 2282/Ahd/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 vide order dated 11th November 2016 has set aside this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO in the set-aside proceedings has not made any addition qua the interest expenses. In other words, the principles laid down by various courts that there cannot be any disallowance of interest expenses in a situation where own fund exceeds the amount of investments. Accordingly, we s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. 72. The learned CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee confirmed the order of the AO in part by observing as under: After taking totality of facts in view, in my considered opinion the prior period expenses of rs. 33,74,078/- as claimed by the appellant during the under consideration are not allowable. These expenses can be amortized and claimed as per the provisions of Sec. 35D after the commencement of business. In this case, since the power plant has not commenced the business, accordingly these expenses cannot be disallowed. In view of this, the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 33,74,078/- is confirmed. : 6.3 As far as claim of the appellant for allowance of expenses of Rs. 22,70,749/- incurred during the year under consideration, I am not inclined to agree with the A.O. The only reason givevtoy the A.O. is that no income has been derived from the above said power project. In my considered view, this cannot be sufficient reason for disallowance of expenses. It is a matter of fact that the appellant was trying to set up a power plant to augment its income. It is clearly held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee for the purpose of the business of power project which could not commenced. If that be so, the impugned expenses has to be treated as business loss. It is a common practice in the commercial world that the assessee takes different kind of business decisions which may not result into any benefit to it. In other words these expenses become futile. But to our understanding such expenses cannot be disallowed merely on the reasoning that there was no corresponding income offered by the assessee. 76.2 Moving further, we note that the impugned expenses of power projects were not connected with the existing business of the assessee. Thus the question arises, whether such expenses on the power project can be allowed against the unconnected business of the assessee. The answer stands in negative. It is for the reason that the provisions of section 37 of the Act stipulates that the expenses which have been incurred for the purpose of the business can only be allowed as deduction. Thus such expenses at the most can be claimed under section 35D of the Act as held by the ld. CIT-A after the commencement of business. 76.3 We are also conscious to the fact that there was common mana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the Appellant company's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in points of law and facts. 2) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant company's case. !hc learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance u/s,14A of Income-tax Act for Rs. 72,54,174. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant company's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing appellant's grounds regarding charging of interest u/ss. 234B & 234D of Income-tax Act. 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant company's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing appellant's ground regarding withdrawing interest u/s. 244A of Income-tax Act. 5) Your appellant craves liberty to add. alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time. 80. The assessee vide later dated 16th February 2021 raised the following additional ground of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, educati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and securities of various companies which yielded considerable exempted income to the assessee. In our considered view at least some part of the administrative or human resources must have been utilized in process of making the investment, keeping the record of these investment and their follow ups. Therefore the contention of the learned AR for the assessee that no expense incurred in relation to investment cannot be relied upon. Therefore we hold that disallowances of expenses should be made as per the provision of rule 8D of the income Tax Rule. Thus we confirmed the addition on account of administrative expenses whereas we direct to delete the addition on account of interest expenses. Hence the ground of the assessee appeal is partly allowed. 90. The issue raised by the assessee in ground number 3, 4 and 5 are either consequential or general in nature not requiring separate adjudication. Hence the same is dismissed being infructuous. 91. The assessee in the additional grounds of appeal has sought the deduction on account of education, secondary & higher education cess paid on income as well as on surcharge. 92. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the asses....