Advances were given to the said group companies as part of the corporate / business strategy of the assessee to expand the business operations. Assessee’s further submission is that lower authorities further failed to appreciate that since the loans and advances were advanced by the assessee to group companies engaged in the similar business out of commercial expediency, no part of interest expenditure was disallowable for advancing interest free loans.
Assessee has not obtained any benefit of enduring nature. The royalty is payable on the basis of volume of sales year to year. In the event of termination of agreement has to discontinue uses of material provided return everything in this respect. Hence it cannot be said that any benefit of enduring nature accrued to the assessee.
In the present case, the AO has also made addition of Rs. 19,58,253/- on account of alleged expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The AO’s action has been confirmed by the CIT(A). Both the authorities have applied Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules while computing the amount of expenditure disallowable u/s 14A of the Act. As already held above, the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable to the present assessment year under consideration. Therefore, disallowance of expenditure by applying Rule 8D is not justified.
The Tribunal found that in view of Instructions issued by the CBDT where the tax effect is less than Re. 1 lakh. The Department should not file an appeal before the Tribunal. In the present case the tax effect is less than Re. 1 lakh. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal did not entertain the appeal.
The revenue is in appeal before us against the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) dated 11.10.2010 passed for assessment year 2002-03. The solitary grievance of the revenue is that Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.50,07,000 which was added by the Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date.
Assessing Officer has observed that according to AIR Information, assessee has received a sum of Rs.41,73,321 on account of interest other than securities from Swedish Match Singapore Pte Limited. He issued a show-cause notice to the assessee inviting his explanation as to why the alleged interest income be not assessed as income of the assessee.
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that on the basis of information received from the office of Addl.DIT (Investigation), Ghaziabad that the assessee deposited cash in his bank account No.785 in Punjab National Bank, BB Nagar, Ghaziabad during the period April, 1998 to March, 2000 while he did not file his returns for the relevant assessment years, a notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the assessee on 24th August, 2005 for the AYs 1999-2000 to 2000-2001, after recording reasons in writing.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the tax effect in the present case is below Rs.3 lakh and we find that as per this Board instruction No.3 dated 9.2.2011, the limit of tax effect for filing the appeal before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.3 lakhs and the same for filing appeal before Hon’ble High Court has been increased to Rs.10 lakhs. In the case of CIT v. Rajan Ramanee (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has applied this Board instruction dated 9.2.2011 and dismissed the appeal of the revenue because of low tax effect.
U/s 250(4), the CIT (A) has the power to direct enquiry and call for evidence from the assessee. Under Rule 46A, the assessee has the right to ask for the admission of additional evidence. If the CIT (A) exercises his powers u/s 250(4) to call for additional evidence, the AO need not be given an opportunity to show-cause. However, if the CIT (A) acts on an application under Rule 46A, then the requirement of giving the AO an opportunity as per Rule 46A(3) is mandatory. The argument that in all cases where additional evidence is admitted, the CIT (A) should be considered to have exercised his powers u/s 250(4) is not acceptable as it will render Rule 46A redundant.
