2011 (11) TMI 743 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of national sales tax liability.
2. Charging of interest u/s 234B.
3. Treatment of Die Tooling charges.
4. Treatment of technical know-how expenses.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of National Sales Tax Liability:
The assessee contended that the sales tax exemption/subsidy amounting to Rs. 5,66,47,652/- should be treated as a capital receipt. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, treating it as a revenue receipt. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Abhishek Industries, 286 ITR 1, where it was held that sales-tax subsidy quantified at a percentage of fixed capital investment is a revenue receipt. Consequently, the Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, dismissing Ground No.1.

2. Charging of Interest u/s 234B:
The assessee argued against the charging of interest u/s 234B, claiming a bona fide belief that the sales tax subsidy was a capital receipt. The Tribunal, however, noted that the levy of interest u/s 234B is mandatory and automatic upon completion of assessment. Therefore, Ground No.2 taken by the assessee was dismissed.

3. Treatment of Die Tooling Charges:
The Department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to treat Die Tooling charges of Rs. 7,73,15,047/- as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's case for assessment year 2001-02, where similar expenses were treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenses were incurred for modernization and improving efficiency, not for setting up new machinery. Thus, Ground No.2 taken by the Department was dismissed.

4. Treatment of Technical Know-How Expenses:
The Department also contested the treatment of technical know-how expenses amounting to Rs. 35,01,307/- as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions for assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04, where similar expenses were treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenses were for improving productivity and resolving quality issues, not for acquiring a capital asset. Consequently, Ground No.3 taken by the Department was dismissed.

Conclusion:
Both the appeals by the assessee and the Department were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues.