9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000 being the write back from creditor balance. 2. Exclusion of sales tax, job work charges, trial run, net sales, etc., while computing deduction under section 80HHC. 3. Ignoring the amount of loss in respect of export of manufactured goods while computing deduction under section 80HHC. 4. Deduction under section 80-I in respect of sale of import license, sale of scrap, sundry balance written back, and insurance claim. 5. Disallowance of the provision for leave encashment payable to employees. 6. Addition made on account of unutilized Modvat credit. 7. Disallowance of start-up expenses. 8. Netting benefit of interest income for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC. 9. Deduction under section 80M on a net basis after disallowing 5 percent of expenses on a notional basis. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000 being the write back from creditor balance: The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,15,00,000 written back in CRM Nasrapur Division, arguing it as a capital receipt and not taxable under section 41(1). The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., and held it taxable under section 28(iv) as income. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the amount, initially not of revenue nature, changed its character over time and became the assessee's own money, thus taxable as income. 2. Exclusion of sales tax, job work charges, trial run, net sales, etc., while computing deduction under section 80HHC: The Tribunal found the issue in favor of the assessee, citing several Supreme Court decisions including CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works, which held that brokerage, commission, interest, rent, excise duty, and sales tax should be deducted from total turnover while computing deduction under section 80HHC. 3. Ignoring the amount of loss in respect of export of manufactured goods while computing deduction under section 80HHC: The Tribunal decided against the assessee, following the Supreme Court's ruling in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which stated that deduction under section 80HHC(3)(c) can only be allowed if there is a positive profit, and any loss must be taken into account for computing profits. 4. Deduction under section 80-I in respect of sale of import license, sale of scrap, sundry balance written back, and insurance claim: The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Sterling Foods, deciding against the assessee for sales tax refund and sale of import license. However, it ruled in favor of the assessee for sale of scrap, sundry balances written back, and insurance claims, based on past ITAT decisions and the Special Bench decision in Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT. 5. Disallowance of the provision for leave encashment payable to employees: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. CIT, which held that the provision for leave encashment is deductible as it is not a contingent liability. 6. Addition made on account of unutilized Modvat credit: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision favoring the assessee, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd., which stated that the method of accounting for Modvat credit must be consistent and not result in erroneous taxation. 7. Disallowance of start-up expenses: The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance, following its earlier decision for the assessment year 1994-95, which was based on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT. 8. Netting benefit of interest income for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC: The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in light of the ITAT Special Bench decision in Lalsons Enterprises v. Dy. CIT. 9. Deduction under section 80M on a net basis after disallowing 5 percent of expenses on a notional basis: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. General Insurance Corpn. of India (No. 1), which held that non-directly relatable expenses should not be deducted from dividend income for section 80M deduction purposes. Conclusion: The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal by the revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
