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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

ACIT, Circle 33(1), New Delhi. Vs. Kalinga International, 5/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
September, 09th 2014
                DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI


                       ITA No.4500/Del/2012
                     Assessment Year : 2008-09

ACIT,                              Vs.   Kalinga International,
Circle 33(1),                            5/1, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.                               New Delhi.

                                         PAN : AAAFK1235H

     (Appellant)                            (Respondent)

              Assessee By      :    None
              Department By    :    Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR



       This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order

passed by the ld. CIT (A) on 07.05.2012 in relation to the

assessment year 2008-09.

2.     Revised grounds have been filed by the Revenue.            First

revised ground is as under:-

        "The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of
        Rs.1,88,061/- on account of disallowance made on
                                                       ITA No.4500/Del/2012

      insurance, depreciation, interest on finance and
      restricting addition @ 10% on disallowance made on
      car expenses to Rs.34,944/- by following ITAT's order
      for AY 2000-01 and citing that there was no such
      addition made in subsequent year 2009-10, despite the
      fact that the ITAT order for AY 2000-01 is too far from
      the AY 2008-09 is question and cannot bind the

3.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the AO

disallowed certain expenses.        The   ld. CIT(A)     deleted the

disallowance by relying on the order passed by the Tribunal in

assessee's own case for AY 2000-01.

4.   We have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material

on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee

despite notice.   As such, we are proceeding to dispose of this

appeal ex parte qua the assessee. In so far as the deletion of the

addition is concerned, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) deleted

such addition by relying on the Tribunal order passed in

assessee's own case for AY 2000-01. The ld. DR could not bring

on record any material to indicate that there was any fallacy in

such order or in the subsequent years such order has not been

followed. Respectfully following the precedent, we approve the

                                                     ITA No.4500/Del/2012

view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.     This ground is not


5.   The second ground is against the deletion of addition of `

15,56,334/- made by the AO on account of interest @ 12% on `

1.29 crore. The facts of this ground are that the assessee gave

interest free loans and advances amounting to ` 1.29 crore to the

related parties.   The AO observed that the assessee had also

taken interest bearing loans. He, therefore, disallowed interest @

12% on such interest free loans and advances to the related

parties and others. This resulted into an addition of ` 15,56,334/-.

The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

6.   After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the

Revenue, we find from the impugned order that interest free

loans were given to the persons whose properties were used by

the assessee for showrooms and godowns, on which no rent was

paid. It can be seen from the impugned order that the AO himself,

while passing order u/s 143(3) for the AY 2009-10, accepted the

assessee's submissions on this score and did not make any such

addition. When interest free loans were given to the parties from

                                                      ITA No.4500/Del/2012

whom the assessee had taken premises for its business purpose

without paying any rent, the notional interest on such loans can

be considered as quid pro quo of rent. Since the AO has himself

accepted the assessee's case, in his order for AY 2009-10, we

hold that no interference can be made in the impugned order on

this issue. This ground is not allowed.

7.   The last effective ground is against the deletion of addition

of ` 6,13,200/- made on account of conversion expenses. The AO

noticed from the Profit & Loss Account that a sum of ` 6,13,200/-

paid as conversion charges was claimed as deduction.             In his

opinion, this was a capital expenditure and, hence, could not be

allowed. The ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition after noticing that the

property in respect of which the assessee paid conversion

charges to MCD, was belonging to Smt. Sarla, and the same was

used by the assessee for his business purpose.

8.   In view of the fact that the assessee was to use this property

of some third person for business purpose and the same was not

possible unless it was so converted, the conversion charges in

such circumstances could not have been considered as a capital

                                                           ITA No.4500/Del/2012

expenditure. The case is not even hit by Expl. 1 to sec. 32(1)

inasmuch as payment of such conversion charges cannot be

considered as any capital expenditure `on the construction of any

structure or doing of any work in or in relation to, and by way of

renovation or extension of, or improvement to, the building'. We,

therefore, hold that such a payment cannot be considered as

capital expenditure. The impugned order on this score is upheld.

9.        In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

10. The order pronounced in the open court on 08.09.2014.

               Sd/-                                        Sd/-

       [A.T. VARKEY]                                    [R.S. SYAL]
     JUDICIAL MEMBER                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated, 08th September, 2014.


Copy forwarded to:

     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   CIT
     4.   CIT (A)
     5.   DR, ITAT

                                                     AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Web Application Development Web based Software Solution Web Application Deployment Web Application Solutions Web Application Software Development Web Application Deployment Web Application Programming Web Application Design and Development

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