2003 (9) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

(1) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee (payable under the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950) has on furnishing of the bank guarantee to be treated as actual payment and accordingly allowing the deduction in respect of the same under section 43B even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1)? - (2) Whether Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on research and development assets which related to the closed business of fast food division/unit of the assessee-company (3) Whether bottling fees chargeable and interest chargeable on late payment of bottling fees amounts to tax duty cess or fees within the meaning of section 43B so as to attract the said provisions while considering allowability of deduction of such expenses?

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction of unpaid bottling fee under section 43B of the Income-tax Act.
2. Allowance of depreciation on research and development assets related to a closed business division.

Issue 1: Deduction of unpaid bottling fee under section 43B of the Income-tax Act:
The appeal involved the question of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction of unpaid bottling fee under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, even though the fee had not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, considering the bank guarantee furnished by the assessee as equivalent to actual payment. The High Court analyzed the nature of the bottling fee, distinguishing it as a consideration for parting with the exclusive privilege of dealing in liquor rather than a fee in the technical sense of taxation. The Court held that the bottling fee did not fall within the purview of section 43B and was allowable as a revenue expenditure if the accounts were maintained on a mercantile basis.

Issue 2: Allowance of depreciation on research and development assets related to a closed business division:
The second issue pertained to the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee on research and development assets related to a closed fast food division. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, citing that the assets must be used in a live business during the relevant accounting period. The assessee contended that the research and development assets were also utilized for the liquor business, which was operational. Additionally, the assessee argued that the assets formed part of the block of assets for depreciation purposes. The High Court noted that the research and development division was active and not closed, even though the fast food division had ceased operations. Considering the facts, the Court held that the depreciation claim on the research and development assets was valid and should be allowed as part of the block of assets.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction of the bottling fee and the allowance of depreciation on the research and development assets. No costs were awarded in the matter.