2015 (7) TMI 1193 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation claim - whether block of asset pertaining to plant and machinery can be set off against the WDV of motor cars - Held that - When we read Section 2(11)with the appendix of rate of depreciation provided in the Income Tax Rule, we find that plant and machinery and motor car have the same rate of depreciation i.e. 15%. Thus in the light of the aforementioned provision, read with the Rules, plant and machinery and motor car fall within the same block of assets. The assessee has made gain on the sale of machinery and the same is set off against the WDV of the motor car. In our considered opinion, there is no error in this conduct of the assessee. We find that it is within the frame work of the relevant provisions of the Act. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure (2012 (4) TMI 469 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has held that all assets, which may be of different types, but in respect of which same percentage of depreciation is prescribed, are to be treated and form part of block of assets. Thus additions deleted - Decided in favour of assessee Amount paid on infringement of copyright - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that - The Plaintiff s i.e. Shri Ram Sampat has assigned his musical works/composition THUMP to the Defendant one of which is assessee. It can also be seen that the payment has been made after deducting tax at source. The most relevant clause is clause (4) which clearly says that the Plaintiff i.e. Shri Ram Sampt shall not have any right of any nature whatsoever in the said work THUMP . A perusal of these relevant clauses of the Consent Terms leaves no ambiguity to hold that the assessee has infact acquired the copy right of the musical composition THUMP . The AO has therefore rightly treated the same as intangible asset and allowed permissible rate of depreciation. Since this act of the AO has been rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere. Disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that - It is a well settled proposition of law that Rule 8D has been held to be constitutionally valid by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boycee Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and the method has been found to be reasonable. Therefore, there is no error in the computation of the disallowance. The AO has already deducted the amount suo moto disallowed by the assessee. The disallowance is only for the balance amount. The claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning dividend income cannot be accepted. As assessee has debited bank interest, bank charges, demat charges, miscellaneous expenses, conveyance expenses and internet expenses. On certain portion of such expenses must have gone towards earning the dividend income. Since the disallowance has been made by the AO as per the provisions of the Act which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation claimed on sale of machinery and equipment.
2. Disallowance of revenue expenditure of Rs. 2,00,00,000.
3. Disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Issue 1 - Disallowance of depreciation claimed on sale of machinery and equipment:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 33,75,231 out of depreciation claimed on the sale of machinery and equipment. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the amount, stating that the block of asset pertaining to plant and machinery cannot be set off against the written down value (WDV) of motor cars. However, the ITAT Mumbai, after considering the definition of block of assets under Section 2(11) of the Act and relevant case law, held that plant and machinery and motor cars fall within the same block of assets as they have the same rate of depreciation. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the ITAT allowed the appeal and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 33,75,231.

Issue 2 - Disallowance of revenue expenditure of Rs. 2,00,00,000:
The AO disallowed Rs. 2,00,00,000 claimed as revenue expenditure, considering it as the acquisition cost of an intangible asset. The assessee argued that the payment was compensatory in nature and not for acquiring any copyright. However, based on the Consent Terms between the parties, it was evident that the assessee acquired the musical composition "THUMP" and the payment was considered as the cost of acquiring an intangible asset. The ITAT upheld the AO's decision, as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Issue 3 - Disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The AO disallowed Rs. 5,72,047 under section 14A read with Rule 8D, pertaining to exempt income from Mutual Fund dividend. The assessee contended that no expenditure was incurred for earning the exempt income. However, the AO computed the disallowance based on Rule 8D, as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The ITAT found the computation of disallowance to be in accordance with the law and rejected the assessee's claim that no expenses were incurred for earning the dividend income. Therefore, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee on the disallowance of depreciation claimed on the sale of machinery and equipment, but upheld the disallowance of revenue expenditure and the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The appeal was partly allowed by the ITAT.