9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of expenses related to application fees for increase in authorized capital and issue of bonus shares. 2. Deductions under sections 80-I and 80-IA concerning interest and rental income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Expenses Related to Application Fees for Increase in Authorized Capital and Issue of Bonus Shares: The assessee, a government-owned petroleum refining company, claimed a deduction of Rs. 55,00,600 for expenses incurred in connection with the application fees for increasing authorized capital and issuing bonus shares, treating these expenses as revenue in nature. This claim was allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) found that the AO did not properly verify the facts and relevant case laws, leading to a potential under-assessment. The CIT referenced the Supreme Court decisions in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT and Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, which treated similar expenditures as capital in nature. The assessee argued that the expenditure was an internal arrangement for capitalizing reserves and cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, which treated such expenses as revenue in nature. However, the CIT held that the expenditure should be treated as capital in nature and directed the AO to modify the assessment accordingly. 2. Deductions Under Sections 80-I and 80-IA Concerning Interest and Rental Income: The assessee included interest income of Rs. 27,75,54,000 and rental income of Rs. 17,81,32,000 as part of the profits and gains of the designated industrial unit, claiming deductions under sections 80-I and 80-IA. The AO allowed these claims. The CIT found that the AO did not consider relevant case laws, such as CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. and CIT v. Cement Distributors Ltd., and thus, the assessment was potentially under-assessed. The CIT noted that interest earned on inter-corporate deposits and rental income from letting out properties should not be considered for deductions under sections 80-I and 80-IA. The assessee argued that the interest income arose from regular business operations and that rental income from retail dealers and staff quarters had a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking. Despite this, the CIT directed the AO to exclude interest and rental income from the computation of deductions under sections 80-I and 80-IA. Judgment: The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision to invoke section 263, agreeing that the AO did not properly investigate or apply relevant legal principles, making the assessment order erroneous. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT's final decision on the issues in the revision order itself. Instead, the Tribunal set aside the specific directions given by the CIT and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration, ensuring the assessee had the opportunity to present its case. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the revision order upheld but the ultimate directions set aside for reassessment by the AO.
|
