2012 (5) TMI 746 - AT - Income Tax

2013 (7) TMI 1058 - AT

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of earlier year's expenses.
2. Allowance of interest paid to Financial Institution.
3. Deletion of addition being bad debts.
4. Allowing depreciation on exchange rate difference.
5. Deletion of modvat credit on capital goods and allowance of depreciation.
6. Deletion of addition being sales promotion expenses.
7. Disallowance of reimbursement to employees against traveling and advertisement expenses u/s 40A(3).
8. Notional interest on advances to subsidiary companies.
9. Disallowance of traveling expenses.
10. Disallowance of repairs to factory building.
11. Disallowance of advertisement expenses.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of earlier year's expenses:
The Revenue contested the disallowance of Rs. 7,63,666/- on account of earlier year's expenses. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, noting that the assessee had suo-moto added back the expenses in the revised return.

2. Allowance of interest paid to Financial Institution:
The Revenue appealed against the allowance of interest of Rs. 8,51,76,446/- paid to Financial Institutions. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s direction to verify the certificates and details furnished by the assessee and to allow the deduction if the payments were verifiable and supported by documents.

3. Deletion of addition being bad debts:
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 1,30,000/- being bad debts. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's contention that the amounts written off were advances for capital assets and not for trading liabilities, thus not allowable u/s 36(2) of the Act.

4. Allowing depreciation on exchange rate difference:
The Revenue appealed against the allowance of depreciation on the exchange rate difference. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd, which allows modification of the actual cost due to exchange rate fluctuations.

5. Deletion of modvat credit on capital goods and allowance of depreciation:
The Revenue contested the deletion of modvat credit on capital goods and allowance of depreciation. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had already reduced the modvat from the cost of plant and machinery, thus disallowing depreciation would amount to double disallowance.

6. Deletion of addition being sales promotion expenses:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 2,80,140/- being sales promotion expenses. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses, finding no infirmity in the order.

7. Disallowance of reimbursement to employees against traveling and advertisement expenses u/s 40A(3):
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,08,372/- u/s 40A(3). The Tribunal directed that only 20% of the expenditure should be disallowed instead of the entire amount, in line with the amendment to section 40A(3).

8. Notional interest on advances to subsidiary companies:
The assessee contested the notional interest of Rs. 1,59,000/- on advances to subsidiary companies. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, following the co-ordinate Bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years.

9. Disallowance of traveling expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 49,570/- for traveling expenses. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to prove that the expenditure was for business purposes.

10. Disallowance of repairs to factory building:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 32,048/- for repairs to the factory building. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with CIT(A) that the expenditure on the Sintex Tank was capital in nature.

11. Disallowance of advertisement expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 13,000/- for advertisement expenses. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with CIT(A) that the expenditure was not incurred fully and exclusively for business purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeals of both the Revenue and the Assessee were partly allowed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 11-5-2012.

← Previous Next →