That argument was not acceptable to the AO and it was held that there was no evidence in support of the contention that the expenditure had actually been incurred directly by those persons. It was held that the assessee had shown the amounts in question as loans/deposits in his books of accounts.
In the light of the above decisions, once on identical facts, a view has already been taken in favour of the assessee on this issue, therefore respectfully following that view, we hereby hold that ld.CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim. In the result, ground raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has paid interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the creditors, whereas the Revenue has allowed interest at the rate of 12% and has added back the difference of 3% interest under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. He submitted that the interest paid at the rate of 15% to two coparceners of the assessee-HUF could not be called excessive. The learned DR has relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act dated 18.12.2008 were that the assesseefirm is in the business of public work construction on contract basis. It was noted by the AO that the assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs. 59,93,911/- which according to him was in the nature of “penal expenditure”.
On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that theory of gift was having a fundamental flaw in so far as there was absolutely no explanation as to why the alleged donor has given gift to the assessee.
We also note that even in the case of comparables selected by the assessee details of which have been given in para 3 of the order earlier, there is wide fluctuation in the margins of the companies; the lowest margin i.e. 0.34% in case of Ask Me Info Hub Ltd. and the highest margin as 27.98% in case of Allsec Technologies Ltd. Obviously the cases selected by the assessee are not identical otherwise there would not have been so wide variation Excluding the highest margin and the loss case, the average margin of other comparables of the assessee comes to only 4.5% which is 1/6th of the highest margin.
The stand of the revenue that expenditure incurred by the society on giving presents to as own members would amount to expenditure on itself or application of its income to its members also could not be countenanced as the society was entirely a separate entity
As far as submissions of allowing the deduction in subsequent AY. is concerned we are of the opinion that the question is not arising out of the appeal decided by the FAA and appeal for the next AY is not before us. In these circumstances, we do not want to pass any order in this regard.
Assessing 0fficer can invoke Rule 8D only when he records satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The condition precedent for the Assessing 0fficer entering upon a determination of the amount of the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income
Following the decision of ACE Builders (P) 28 ITR 2000(Bom) and Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt Ltd 262 ITR 58 (Gau). It was held that Section 54E does not make any distinction between the depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets, therefore, the investment u/s 54E is a permissible investment.
