2016 (3) TMI 1194 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on Wind Energy Generators - Held that - Respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal in asseessee s own case, we hold that the assessee is eligible for depreciation wherein held the section requires that the assessee must use the asset for the purpose, of business . It does not mandate usage of the asset by the assessee itself. As long as the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee, the requirement of section 32 will stand satisfied, notwithstanding non-usage of the asset itself by the assessee. The assessee did use the vehicles in the course of its leasing business. The fact that the trucks themselves were not used by the assessee was irrelevant for the purpose of the section. - Decided n favour of assessee Disallowance made u/s. 14A - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for A.Y. 04-05 & 05-06 we are of the view that the matter with respect to Nil disallowance under 14A be remitted back to the file of AO for examining it afresh. Thus the matter is remitted to the file of AO and he is directed to admit the issue and decide the issue afresh on merits. as per law after considering the submissions made by the Assessee and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Assessee is also directed and furnish promptly the details called for by the AO to decide the issue. Thus this ground of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of loss on write off of preference shares - Held that - We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court) the bank is free to value its inventories securities at cost or market price whichever is lower. Since the entire issue of write off has not been looked upon by the lower authorities in this perspective, we, therefore, restore the matter to the files of the A.O. The A.O is directed to examine this issue in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Banking Regulation Act and decide afresh after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee Exempt income of ₹ 3606 lakhs, HTM investments-8803 lakhs and Foreign Exchange Fluctuation-6.29 lakhs - Held that - We find that these claims were not entertained by the revenue authorities, following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court given in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court since the assessee has not made the claim by filing a revised return of income, the claim was denied. However, this issue is no more res integra as it is now a well settled proposition of law that the assessee can make a new claim as held by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court, we restore the entire issue to the files of the A.O. Addition made towards Gain on securitization amortized as per RBI guidelines - Held that - The amortization merely represents a timing difference and since the bank is consistently making profits and paying tax at the highest rate without claiming any tax holiday benefit, it can be safely concluded that the method followed is revenue neutral. We draw support from the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1957 (9) TMI 30 - Bombay High Court . We accordingly set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to delete the addition Interest u/s 244A - Held that - We find force in the contention of the ld.counsel, the assessee is entitled for the interest u/s. 244A of the Act as per the provisions of the law. If the refund was not delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee. We, therefore restore this issue to the files of the A.O. The A.O is directed to recompute the refund allowable to the assessee after giving appeal effect and allow interest u/s. 244A of the Act. If it is found that the delay is not attributable to the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of Annual Technical Services (ATS) fees.
2. Claim of depreciation on Wind Energy Generators.
3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Write-off of preference shares as bad debts.
5. Claims related to exempt income, HTM investments, and foreign exchange fluctuation.
6. Gain on securitization amortized as per RBI guidelines.
7. Withdrawal of interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance of Annual Technical Services (ATS) Fees:
The revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 19,82,420/- for ATS fees paid to Infosys was dismissed due to the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which restricts the revenue from filing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs.

2. Claim of Depreciation on Wind Energy Generators:
The assessee's claim for depreciation of Rs. 313.34 lakhs on Wind Energy Generators was initially disallowed by the A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal allowed the claim based on its own decisions in previous years (A.Y. 02-03, 04-05 & 05-06) and the Supreme Court's decision in ICDS Ltd. v. CIT, which affirmed that assets leased out by the assessee qualify for depreciation.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The A.O. disallowed Rs. 42.68 crores under Section 14A, while the assessee had already disallowed Rs. 2.20 crores suo motu. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions, noting that interest-free funds exceeded tax-free investments, and thus no further disallowance was warranted. The matter was remitted back to the A.O. for fresh examination of the suo motu disallowance.

4. Write-off of Preference Shares as Bad Debts:
The A.O. disallowed the write-off of Rs. 11 crores as bad debts, treating them as investments. The CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 17.7 crores. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in UCO Bank, directed the A.O. to re-examine the issue, considering that banks can value securities at cost or market price, whichever is lower.

5. Claims Related to Exempt Income, HTM Investments, and Foreign Exchange Fluctuation:
The revenue authorities had denied these claims as they were not filed through a revised return. The Tribunal, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., restored the issue to the A.O. for a fresh decision as per the law.

6. Gain on Securitization Amortized as per RBI Guidelines:
The A.O. added Rs. 93,13,051/- to the income, which was amortized as per RBI guidelines. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal, noting the consistency in the bank's profit and tax payments, and the revenue neutrality of the method, directed the A.O. to delete the addition.

7. Withdrawal of Interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act:
The A.O. had withdrawn interest under Section 244A, which was contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) directed the A.O. to correctly compute the interest as per the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Larsen and Toubro Ltd., restored the issue to the A.O. for recomputation, ensuring no delay attributable to the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis and directions for each issue, ensuring adherence to legal precedents and guidelines. The appeals were disposed of with specific instructions for re-examination and recomputation where necessary, maintaining a consistent approach with previous rulings and judicial decisions.

← Previous Next →