2010 (3) TMI 1102 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses as capital expenditure.
2. Deduction of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii).
3. Addition of employees' contribution to PF and ESI.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Expenses as Capital Expenditure:
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the AO's disallowance of Rs. 1,32,31,892/- as capital expenditure related to the extension of business at Greater Noida. The AO had categorized these expenses, including interest on loans, as capital in nature. The CIT(A) supported this view, noting the expenses were for a new printing unit and were capitalized until the project was deferred. The Tribunal found that the nature of the project (whether it was an expansion or a new business) was not adequately examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to determine the nature of the project and whether the expenses should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure, considering the applicability of AS-16.

2. Deduction of Interest Expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii):
The assessee claimed that interest expenditure of Rs. 1,93,98,338/- incurred during the relevant previous year should be allowed as a deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). This issue was not raised before the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, allowed the assessee to raise this issue. The Tribunal found the claim genuine and remitted it to the AO for adjudication, linking it with the determination of whether the Noida project was an expansion of the existing business.

3. Addition of Employees' Contribution to PF and ESI:
The AO disallowed the employees' contributions to PF and ESI, amounting to Rs. 12,65,976/- and Rs. 7203/-, due to late payment beyond the due date specified in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd., which allows such payments if made before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the deductions.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues remitted to the AO for further examination and adjudication in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and applicable law.