9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 893 - AT - Income TaxContribution to Non- Statutory Funds - D isallowance u/s Section 40A(9) - It was contended that contributions made by the assessee to Bata Workers Sickness Benefit Society must not be an allowable expenditure as the Society is neither a body referred to u/s 36(1)(iv) or (v) nor does it satisfy conditions of sub-section 10 of section 40A. - HELD THAT - All the payments made by the assessee regarding Employees contribution to PF and ESIC before the due date of filing of the return are allowed as a deduction. Decision in the case of CIT VERSUS VINAY CEMENT LTD. 2007 (3) TMI 346 - SC ORDER relied upon. Royalty Payment- A Revenue or Capital Expenditure? - In a Royalty agreement it was mentioned that in the event of termination or expiry of the agreement the licensed products were not to be manufactured nor was its trademarks to be used and all to be returned to the licensor. - HELD THAT - Assesse has derived no enduring benefit nor has assessee obtained any capital asset on the basis of the payment of the royalty as per the agreement. Thus it cannot be treated as a capital expenditure.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07. 2. Allowability of contributions to Bata Workers Sickness Benefit Society. 3. Allowability of depreciation on river embankment. 4. Treatment of royalty payment as capital or revenue expenditure. 5. Deletion of addition for delayed payment of Employees' contribution to P.F. and ESIC. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A)'s order The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The appeals raised various grounds related to the treatment of expenses and deductions. Issue 2: Allowability of Contributions to Bata Workers Sickness Benefit Society The Revenue contended that the contributions made to the society were not allowable under Section 40A(9) and did not satisfy the conditions of Section 40A(10). However, the Tribunal noted that the issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee by a Co-ordinate Bench, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 3: Allowability of Depreciation on River Embankment The Revenue challenged the allowance of depreciation on a river embankment under the block of assets 'Building.' The Tribunal observed that the depreciation had been allowed in a previous year and not appealed by the Revenue, leading to the current year's allowance. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 4: Treatment of Royalty Payment The assessee argued that the royalty payment should be treated as revenue expenditure based on the agreement terms, which did not result in the creation of any enduring benefit or capital asset. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, directing the AO to allow the royalty payment as a revenue expenditure, thereby allowing the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. Issue 5: Deletion of Addition for Delayed Payment of PF and ESIC The Revenue's appeal against the deletion of addition for delayed payment of Employees' contribution to P.F. and ESIC was dismissed as the Tribunal found the issue to be covered by relevant Supreme Court decisions, leading to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue for all three assessment years and allowed the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for the relevant issues, providing a detailed analysis and legal reasoning for each decision.
|
