Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: cpt :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2) Hyderabad.
April, 23rd 2014


                  Assessment Year 2009-2010

M/s. Jayadarshini Housing             DCIT, Circle 2(2)
P. Ltd. Hyderabad                 vs. Hyderabad.
(Appellant)                            (Respondent)

       For Assessee             : Mr. S. Rama Rao
       For Revenue              : Mr. P. Somasekhar Reddy

             Date of Hearing : 03.04.2014
       Date of pronouncement : 16.04.2014



       This is an assessee's appeal against the Order of the
CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad dated 26th November, 2012. The assessee
has raised six grounds in its appeal and an additional ground
on the issue of allowance under section 40(a)(ia) which is as
under :

     "The Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in
     disallowing an amount of Rs.1,83,16,079/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of
     the I.T. Act. The authorities ought to have seen that the
     entire amount of TDS was remitted to the account of the
     Central Government before the due date for filing the return
     of income and, therefore, the entire amount would have been

2.           The Ld. Counsel submitted that consequent to the
amendment to section 40(a)(ia) brought out by Finance Act,
2010 which was interpreted to be retrospectively applicable by
                      M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad

various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court,
assessee has raised an additional ground which is legal in
nature as all facts are available on record.

2.1.           Ld. D.R. however, objected allowing additional
ground as it will result in reduction of returned income.
Therefore,      the     additional       ground   need     not    be

3.             Having considered the rival contentions, we are of
the opinion that this being a legal ground is allowable, on the
principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of
admitting additional grounds. Therefore, the additional ground
is admitted for consideration.

4.             Briefly stated, the issues in this appeal arise on
the following facts. The assessee-company is engaged in the
business of purchase and sale of plots and construction
activities. It filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on
06.04.2010 declaring total income of Rs.92,29,100/-. The A.O.
completed the assessment order u/s.143(3) by making the
following additions :

       (i)     disallowance of expenditure        Rs. 14,46,530/-
       (ii)    disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia)         Rs.1,83,16,079/-
       (iii)   disallowance on of interest
               on borrowed secured loans          Rs. 31,18,462/-
       (iv)    disallowance of employees
                Contribution.                     Rs.    5,89,931/-

4.1.           Ld. CIT(A) on the above issues rejected the
assessee's contentions. Therefore, the present appeal. Ground
no 1 is general in nature.
                   M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad

5.           Ground Nos. 2 and 3 pertain to the disallowance of
interest   on   loans   of   Rs.31,18,462/-.    The   A.O.   made
disallowance of Rs.31,18,462/- on the following reason :

       "2. Disallowance of interest on borrowed secured loans

        During the year relevant to the A.Y. under consideration,
     the assessee company borrowed cash credit from Axis Bank
     amounting to Rs.2.00 crores and term loan to the tune of Rs.
     1.70 crores. For securing the said loans, it paid interest on
     cash credit amounting to Rs.17,45,981/- and on term loan
     Rs.13,72,481/-. On verification it is noticed that these funds
     are not utilized by the company for business purpose but
     they are given as advance to sister concerns and others on
     which not interest is charged. As the borrowed funds are not
     utilized for the purpose of business, the interest expenditure
     is not to be allowed atleast in proportion to the unutilized
     funds. Hence, the interest charged on these funds
     amounting to Rs.31,18,462/- is disallowed and added to the
     income returned."
5.1.         The Ld. CIT(A) considering the assessee's written
submissions that it has not diverted any funds from business,
however, did not agree by stating as under :

     "4.2.    I have considered carefully the facts and evidence.
     It is very clear that the sister concerns are independent
     companies having their own business and books of account.
     For conducting their own business and purchase of land,
     these companies obtained funds from various sources. There
     was no commercial expediency for the appellant to obtain
     interest bearing loans from bank and transfer the same to
     the sister concerns free of interest. Further, the argument of
     the appellant that borrowed funds were not given to sister
     concerns is not correct because there was no requirement for
     the appellant to borrow funds in case advances were not to
     be given to the sister concerns. For its own use, it had
     enough advances received from customers. I am fortified in
     my view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana
     Court in the case of CIT vs. Abishek Industries 286 ITR 1.
     Similarly the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
     case of Maddhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT (SC) 118 ITR 200 and
     the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case
                     M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad

     of CIT vs. VM Salgacar and Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (Kar) 198 ITR
     738, are directly applicable in this case".

6.           Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has advanced
funds for the purpose of business and has not diverted any of
the funds for non-business purposes and trade advances
cannot be considered as interest free loans. In support, Ld.
Counsel relied on the orders of the ITAT in some of the
advances given earlier, wherein proceedings under section
2(22)(e) were initiated in the case of G. Saibaba and G. Sailaja
(of the Group) to submit that the ITAT has deleted the deemed
dividend under section 2(22)(e) on the reason that funds have
been advanced for business purposes. It was the submission
that details of utilization of borrowed funds were furnished to
the Ld. CIT(A) which were not considered.

7.           Ld. D.R. however, submitted that the orders under
section   2(22)(e)    does   not   pertain   to   the   A.Y.   under
consideration but earlier years. Therefore, there is no co-
relation of that order to the facts of the case. He relied on the
Orders of the A.O. and CIT(A).

8.           We have considered the issue and examined the
facts on record. As seen from the balance sheet, the term loan
obtained by assessee among various other secured loans was
in fact carried-over term loan which was reflected in the
Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 2008 as well. The outstanding
term loan at the end of that year was Rs.3.70 crores which has
gone upto Rs.4.50 crores. Therefore, we are unable to verify
from where the A.O. has picked-up the term loan of Rs.1.70
crores considered for disallowance. Even though `cash credit'
was sanctioned during the year, it is very easy to verify the
cash flow to examine whether that cash credit was diverted for
                     M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad

non-business purposes. Just because assessee has advanced
funds to sister concerns, without examining whether they are
for the purpose of business or not, A.O. cannot estimate the
disallowance on pure surmises and observations. The assessee
has submitted detailed explanation before the Ld. CIT(A) that it
has its own funds available and no part of the borrowed funds
were diverted. Unfortunately, the Ld. CIT(A) did not examine
the facts and went by the observations of the A.O. Even
though, Ld. CIT(A) accepted that funds were given to the sister
concern for purchase of land, he was of the opinion that it is
diversion of funds. Since the contentions of assessee were
examined by the authorities, we are of the opinion that the
entire issue is to be re-examined on the basis of the
submissions made by the assessee that no part of the
borrowed funds were diverted. Therefore, in the interest of
justice, we set aside the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) on this
issue and restore it to the file of the A.O. to examine the
borrowed funds mentioned above and see whether any part of
the amount has been diverted for non-business purposes. We
will make it clear that only those two amounts which are
mentioned by the A.O. for consideration should be examined
and decided. With these observations, the grounds are
considered allowed for statistical purposes.

9.           Ground No.4 and additional ground are on the
issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

9.1.         Brief    facts   are   that   during    the    course   of
assessment    proceedings,     it   was    noticed   from    the   TDS
particulars that assessee deducted the tax but failed to remit
the same into Government account. The details are as under :
                    M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad

S.No. U/s.            Nature of Work               Amount
1       u/s. 194J     Professions & Consultancy          184396
2       u/s. 194A     Interest                         1295159
3       u/s. 194C     Contract works                  15180524
                      Total                           18316079

10.          Assessing Officer relying on the provisions of
section 40(a)(ia) made the disallowance of Rs.1,83,16,079/-.
Assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the entire amount
was paid during the year and A.O. was not correct in
disallowing the amount which has already added back by the
assessee in the computation of income, to that extent, addition
made was duplicated. On analyzing that assessee has not
advanced     any    arguments   for    the   balance   amount   of
Rs.33,99,622/- Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition to that
extent with a direction to the A.O. to verify whether the
contention of the assessee that amount of Rs.1,49,16,457/-
was already added back by it. Assessee raised the disallowance
under section 40(a)(ia) at Rs.33,99,622/- in ground No.4,
whereas, the addition of Rs.1,49,16,457/- was contested in the
additional ground.

10.1.        The Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT(A)-
IV, Hyderabad vs. PEC Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Secunderabad in
ITA.No.263 of 2013 dated 12.07.2013 has held that provisions
of section 40(a)(ia) introduced by Finance Act, 2010 are
retrospective in operation. The relevant observations of the
Hon'ble High Court in the case of PEC Electronics Pvt. Ltd. are
as under :

         "With regard to the next question, the Tribunal by
        following the decision of the Kolkata High Court in
        CIT    V/s. Virgin Creations (GA.No.3200/2011),
        wherein it has been held that the amendment to the
        provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in
                  M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad

        operation and consequently in respect of any
        payment to TDS made before the due date for the
        filing of the return of income, the provisions of
        section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. Therefore, we
        do not find any reason to see that any further
        decision on this point is required by this Court."

10.2.        Consequently, assessee's contention that amount
added back need not be added back is correct. However, since
the CIT(A) has already directed the A.O. to verify and as
submitted by the assessee the details of payments are already
stated in the 3CD report as well as enclosure to the returns
(copy placed at page 20 of the paper book filed), A.O. is
directed to allow the amount, if the amounts are paid by due
date as per the amended provisions of the Act. It was the
contention that the amount of Rs.33,99,622/- was also paid
within the period. This amount is also required to be verified
and if paid with in the dates as permitted by amended
provision, no addition can be made. A.O. is directed to examine
and allow the amounts as per the provisions of the Act.

11.          Ground No.5 pertain to the issue of claim of
Rs.14,46,530/- made by the assessee but disallowed by the
A.O. for want of evidence. It is an admitted fact that the
assessee failed to produce any bills or vouchers and in the
absence of necessary evidence, A.O. disallowed the amount,
The same was also confirmed by the CIT(A). Even though, Ld.
A.R. argued that aforementioned disallowance pertains to
amounts paid to various Government organisations for land
development, permissions, approvals etc., in the absence of
any evidence of such expenditure, the same cannot be allowed
as these amounts are stated to have been paid in cash.
                   M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Hyderabad

Therefore, we do not see any reason to allow the assessee's
claim. The ground is rejected.

12.            Ground No.6 pertain to levy of interest under
section 234B and 234C which are consequential in nature,
which does not require any adjudication. Accordingly, ground
is rejected.

13.            In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly
allowed for statistical purposes.

         Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2014.

 Sd/-                                  Sd/-

Hyderabad, Dated 16th April, 2014


Copy to :

1. M/s. Jayadarshini Housing P. Ltd. Plot No.129/2, Level-1,
   G.S. Arkade, Beside India Bank, Srinagar Colony,
   Hyderabad ­ 500 073. C/o. S. Rama Rao, Advocate,
   Flat No. 102, Shriya's Elegance, H.No.3-6-643, Street No.9,
   Himayatnagar, Hyderabad ­ 500 029.
3. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad.
4. CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad
5. CIT-II, Hyderabad
8. D.R. ITAT, `A' Bench, Hyderabad.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions