2014 (11) TMI 1121 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA - whether CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IA by treating each of the assessee s windmills a separate unit for granting additional depreciation benefit - Held that - As decided in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd 2009 (9) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT as far as application of section 32(1)(iia) is concerned, what is required to be satisfied in order to claim the additional depreciation is that the setting up of a new machinery or plant should have been acquired and installed after March 31, 2002 by an assessee, who was already engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. The said provision does not state that the setting up of a new machinery or plant, which was acquired and installed up to March 31, 2002, should have any operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the contention that the setting up of a wind mill has nothing to do with the power industry, namely, manufacture of oil seeds, etc., is totally not germane to the specific provision contained in section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.. - Decided against revenue Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) - Held that - We find that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have specifically dealt with the assessee s interest accounts statement reproduced hereinabove. The Assessing Officer s findings alleging diversion of interest bearing funds prove to be contrary to the case record. Thus, we observe that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable and accept the assessee s arguments. - Decided against revenue UPS device treated as a part of computer entitled for 60% depreciation. Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2014 (2) TMI 224 - ITAT CHENNAI Disallowance of expenditure pertaining to consignment sales - Held that - The assessee has duly deducted TDS on these payments for claiming the same as expenditure. The authorities below observe that in assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the assessee had contested non-deductibility of TDS and preferred appeals against the disallowance which have not become final. We do not agree with this reasoning. The fact remains that the assessee in the relevant previous year has complied with the TDS provisions before making payments for the consignment sales. In these circumstances, we accept the assessee s contentions and hold that once TDS has been duly deducted, its mere action of pursuing appeal in earlier assessment years does not bar it from claiming the payments as expenditure. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of additional depreciation u/s 80IA for windmills.
2. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) for interest expenditure.
3. Disallowance of consignment sales.

Issue 1: Claim of Additional Depreciation u/s 80IA for Windmills:
- The main issue in this case was the allowance of additional depreciation u/s 80IA for windmills. The Revenue contended that each windmill should not be treated as a separate unit for granting additional depreciation benefit. The Assessing Officer disallowed the additional depreciation, stating that the windmill's power generation did not qualify as manufacturing or production of an article or thing. However, the CIT(A) allowed the additional depreciation based on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras, which held that the setting up of a new machinery or plant did not require operational connectivity to the existing business. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) for Interest Expenditure:
- The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount under rule 8D(2)(ii) for interest expenditure, alleging diversion of interest-bearing funds for investments. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's findings were contrary to the evidence presented by the assessee, which detailed the interest accounts. The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable, and the assessee's appeal against the disallowance was allowed.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Consignment Sales:
- The assessee challenged the disallowance of expenses related to consignment sales. The authorities had observed that the assessee had contested non-deductibility of TDS in previous years. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, noting that the TDS had been duly deducted in the relevant year. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that pursuing appeals in earlier years did not bar the assessee from claiming the payments as expenditure.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals related to additional depreciation and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeals regarding disallowance of interest expenditure and consignment sales. The judgments were pronounced on November 21, 2014, in Chennai.