9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1314 - AT - Income TaxDeduction claimed u/s 80-IA in respect of interest management fees and corporate guarantee commission - Held that - Merely because there was a nexus between the business and the receipt of income we cannot say that the income was directly derived from the business undertaking. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act the income shall have to be derived from business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing or operating and maintaining of infrastructure facility. Therefore interest income received from deposits management fees and corporate guarantee commission are not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. In the absence of specific provision like Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the entire miscellaneous income has to be excluded since they are not derived from industrial undertaking. Therefore the question of netting would not arise for consideration. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IA in the computation of book profit under Section 115JA - Held that - This Section 80-IB merely says that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction at 100% of he profits and gains for the first five assessment years. For the first five assessment years the assessee is eligible for 100% of the profits and gains and in the next year in the case of company the assessee is eligible for 30% of the profits. Therefore the 30% of the profits and gains allowed under Section 80-IA of the Act has to be reduced from the book profit computed for the purpose of Section 115JA of the Act. Therefore this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to reduce 30% of the profits and gains which was computed under Section 80-IB(4) of the Act from the book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income under Section 115JA of the Act. Estimation of profit for the purpose of computing profit under Section 155JA - addition made to the extent of 61 Crores in the normal computation - Held that - The very same issue was considered by this Tribunal for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and this Tribunal deleted the similar addition made by the Assessing Officer. Both the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the Ld.counsel for the assessee very fairly brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. Depreciation claimed by the assessee on the purchase of steel - Held that - CIT(Appeals) is expected to examine the genuineness of purchase of steel independently on the basis of the material available on record and thereafter record his own finding with regard to acquisition and existence of the capital asset. Unfortunately the CIT(Appeals) has not taken any pain to ascertain the genuineness of purchase of steel and the acquisition/existence of the capital asset. Therefore as rightly submitted by the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue with regard to depreciation is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter afresh on the basis of bills and vouchers that may be produced by the assessee for purchasing the steel and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Disallowance under Section 14A - Held that - The assessee being a company has to entrust the matter to some of the executives for making investment. Therefore the salary paid to the executives who were entrusted the work of investment is definitely a cost incurred by the assessee for taking administrative decision to invest in the shares which yielded exempted income. The managerial function performed by the executives need to be taken into consideration for the purpose of estimation of disallowance. Since Rule 8D is not applicable this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that a reasonable estimation has to be made. This Tribunal wherever Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules 1962 is not applicable is uniformly making 2% disallowance of investment. Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to estimate the disallowance at 2% of investment made by the assessee. Deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC - assessee has not filed Form 10CCAC - Held that - Denial of claim on the ground that the assessee has not filed Form 10CCAC which was a pre-condition for allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Therefore the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to verify Form 10CCAC. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. Set off of losses by the assessee while computing book profit - Held that - It is not known what kind of claim was made by the assessee to set off while computing the book profit. In the absence of details of claim for set off for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80-IA for interest, management fees, and corporate guarantee commission. 2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA in the computation of book profit under Section 115JA. 3. Addition of ?61 Crores for computing book profit under Section 115JA. 4. Depreciation on the purchase of steel. 5. Depreciation on account of capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 6. Disallowance under Section 14A. 7. Deduction under Section 80HHC. 8. Set off of losses while computing book profit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80-IA for Interest, Management Fees, and Corporate Guarantee Commission: The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80-IA for interest income, management fees, and corporate guarantee commission, arguing these were inextricably linked to their business. The Revenue opposed, stating these incomes were not derived from the industrial undertaking and thus not eligible under Section 80-IA. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's stance, citing that the income must be directly derived from the business of developing or operating and maintaining infrastructure facilities. The Tribunal also referenced the judgments of the Apex Court in Sterling Foods, Pandian Chemicals, and Liberty India, confirming that such incomes do not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA. 2. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80-IA in the Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JA: The assessee contested the disallowance of deductions under Section 80-IA in the computation of book profit under Section 115JA. The Tribunal noted that the statutory restriction of 30% profit in normal computation does not apply to book profit computation under Section 115JA. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reduce 30% of profits and gains computed under Section 80-IB(4) from the book profit for taxable income computation under Section 115JA. 3. Addition of ?61 Crores for Computing Book Profit under Section 115JA: The Revenue's appeal regarding the addition of ?61 Crores for computing book profit under Section 115JA was dismissed. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been resolved in the assessee's favor in previous years (1998-99 and 1999-2000), and there was no justification for the addition. 4. Depreciation on the Purchase of Steel: The Revenue claimed that the assessee's purchase of steel was bogus as no purchase bills were produced. The Tribunal found that reliance on the block assessment order, which was set aside, was unjustified. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the genuineness of the steel purchase based on bills and vouchers provided by the assessee. 5. Depreciation on Account of Capitalization of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation: Since the main issue of depreciation was remitted back, the Tribunal directed that all issues related to depreciation, including capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation, be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. 6. Disallowance under Section 14A: The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2000-01. It directed a reasonable estimation of disallowance at 2% of the investment, considering the managerial costs incurred by the assessee for making investment decisions. 7. Deduction under Section 80HHC: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s direction to the Assessing Officer to verify Form 10CCAC for allowing deduction under Section 80HHC, noting that the Revenue had no grounds for grievance. 8. Set Off of Losses while Computing Book Profit: The Tribunal remitted the issue of set-off of losses while computing book profit back to the Assessing Officer, noting the lack of details regarding the claim. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the matter based on the material provided by the assessee. Conclusion: Both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination and reconsideration.
|
