1997 (2) TMI 560 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance u/s 43B on sales tax.
2. Disallowance of bad debts/business loss.
3. Tax treatment of Rs. 3,00,000 received on surrender of the trademark 'Rasna'.
4. Claim of technical know-how fees as revenue expenditure.
5. Deduction of provision for trade guarantee.
6. Additional depreciation on certain equipment.
7. Depreciation on assets used in the office of a factory not set up.
8. Non-allowance of bad debts written off.

Summary:

1. Disallowance u/s 43B on Sales Tax:
The assessee did not press this issue during the hearing, and it was treated as rejected.

2. Disallowance of Bad Debts/Business Loss:
This issue was also not pressed during the hearing and was treated as rejected.

3. Tax Treatment of Rs. 3,00,000 Received on Surrender of the Trademark 'Rasna':
The assessee claimed the amount as a capital receipt, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294. The CIT(Appeals) treated it as revenue. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim, stating that the trademark 'Rasna' was a joint property and the amount received was in the nature of capital.

4. Claim of Technical Know-How Fees as Revenue Expenditure:
The assessee claimed technical know-how fees of Rs. 35,13,678 as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure, noting that the technical know-how provided an enduring advantage. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this view. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification, noting that if the technical know-how was for modernizing existing processes, it could be considered revenue expenditure.

5. Deduction of Provision for Trade Guarantee:
The assessee made a provision of Rs. 137.28 lakhs for trade guarantees, which the Assessing Officer disallowed as contingent expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal allowed the provision, noting that it was based on a scientific analysis and consistent with the commercial practice of accounting for expected losses.

6. Additional Depreciation on Certain Equipment:
The Tribunal rejected the claim for additional depreciation on items like Nashua paper copier, water cooler, and air-conditioning machinery, noting that similar claims were disallowed in the previous assessment year.

7. Depreciation on Assets Used in the Office of a Factory Not Set Up:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on assets used in the office, even though the factory was not set up, as the office was in use.

8. Non-Allowance of Bad Debts Written Off:
The Tribunal allowed the claim for bad debts written off, noting that the write-offs were based on commercial considerations and reasonable in the circumstances.