Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

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 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting