2012 (4) TMI 669 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 6,42,045/- claimed as revenue expenditure.
2. Deletion and restriction of addition u/s 14A related to apportionment of expenses.
3. Allowance of incentive paid to dealers.
4. Depreciation claim on plant and machinery.
5. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
6. Charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C, and 234D.

Summary:

1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 6,42,045/- claimed as revenue expenditure:
The Revenue contended that CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,42,045/- as major repairs were considered as capital assets. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by the assessee's own case in ITA No. 594/Chd/2008, where similar expenses were allowed as current repairs. Hence, this ground of appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

2. Deletion and restriction of addition u/s 14A related to apportionment of expenses:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 2,34,99,000/- out of Rs. 2,59,99,000/- and the restriction of disallowance to Rs. 25 lacs u/s 14A. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 594/Chd/2008. It was held that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted as there was no finding of interest/expenditure attributable to earning dividend income. Thus, these grounds of appeal by the Revenue were dismissed.

3. Allowance of incentive paid to dealers:
The Revenue contended that CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow incentive paid to dealers where PAN was provided. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 270/Chd/2006. It was held that the incentive paid to dealers was a business expenditure and should be allowed. Hence, this ground of appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

4. Depreciation claim on plant and machinery:
The assessee contended that CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 1,89,27,512/- by restricting the depreciation claim on plant and machinery to 15% instead of 40%. The Tribunal found that the assessee satisfied the conditions for accelerated depreciation under Rule 5(2) of the Income Tax Rules, supported by certificates from the Ministry of Science and Technology. Hence, this ground of appeal by the assessee was allowed.

5. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c):
The assessee challenged the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal held that the issue was premature and dismissed this ground of appeal.

6. Charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The assessee contested the charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C, and 234D. The Tribunal held that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential, and hence, dismissed this ground of appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.