We find that the AO has not claimed that Shri Devang Shah, CA was authorised to receive any notice on behalf of the assessee-firm or was the representative of the assessee or that any power of attorney was executed by the assessee firm in favour of the said Chartered Accountant.
In the present set of facts, we have noted that the AO had considered the impugned repair expenditure as annual rent in the hands of the assessee which was without any basis. As far as the assessee was concerned, the deduction @ 30% is like a standard deduction as prescribed u/s.24(a) of IT Act, not necessarily incurred towards repairs of the house property as held in the case of JB Patel & Co. 118 ITD 556.
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”.
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
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.
The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law in not appreciating that benefit u/s.54EC is granted on capital gains and not on sale proceeds of capital asset. And that capital gain in respect of depreciable assets can be arrived at only u/s.50 and therefore, deeming provisions of section 50 cannot be ignored for the purpose of section 54EC.
We find that with regard to the investment of Rs. 5907.18 lakhs in foreign subsidiaries, no disallowance can be made under section 14A because dividend income from foreign subsidiaries is taxable in India. Regarding balance investment of Rs. 38 crores approximately in Indian subsidiaries, we find that interest-free own funds of the assessee is many times more than this investment because interest free funds available with the assessee as on March 31, 2005 as per the balance-sheet as on that date is of Rs. 929.57 crores. There is no finding given by the Assessing Officer regarding any direct nexus between interest bearing borrowed funds and investment in Indian subsidiaries. Hence, in our considered opinion, no disallowance under section 14A can be made out of interest expenditure in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue’s appeal are rejected.
