Decided on July 04,2014

Mindteck (India) Ltd. Appellant


Pramod M.Jagtap, Member (A) - (1.) THIS appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) -III Bangalore dated 27.03.2013 and the grievance of the assessee is projected in the following grounds raised therein: - - '1. Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law. 1.1 The order passed by the Income -tax Officer, Ward 12(1) ['ITO' or 'AO'], is bad on facts and in law, and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Without prejudice to our ground challenging the order of AO, we appeal that.
(2.) ADDITION of interest income of Rs. 6,884,758. 2.1 The learned Assessing Officer has erred in treating the interest income earned by the appellant company as income under the head "income from other sources". 2.2 The learned Assessing Officer ought to have observed that the interest income earned are in the normal course of business and thus should be treated as income under the head "Profits and gains from business and profession" and not under the head "income from other sources". 2.3 Further, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not setting off of the resultant current year business loss against the income from other sources by virtue of operation of provisions of section 71 of the Act. Levy of Interest under section 234B of the Act of Rs. 2,353,037. 3.1 Interest under section 234B of the Act is consequential in nature.
(3.) DIRECTIONS issued by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) III. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT/AO has erred in law and on facts in not taking cognizance of the grounds filed by the Appellant in relation to the assessment order passed by the AO in the proceedings before them. 4.2 The Hon'ble CIT/AO erred in facts and law in disallowing the set -off of the 10A unit loss during the current year against non -10A unit profit and other income in accordance with Sec. 70 and Sec. 71 of the Act.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.