2010 (8) TMI 472 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of income On account of unutilized Modvat Credit pertaining to the closing stock as per the provisions of section 145A - Assessee company has followed the exclusive method whereby only the net amount of purchases is debited to the purchase account and the balance amount representing excise duty is debited separately to modvat account - guidance note issued by the ICAI wherein hypothetical working is given to show that in the case of an assessee following exclusive method , adjustments made by including the excise duty in the value of purchases, sales and inventory will not have any effect on the profit - Ground No. 1 of the assessee s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes DEPB credit - Deduction u/s 80HHC - Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (2010 -TMI - 76895 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein it has been held that the entire amount received on the sale of DEPB would fall within the purview of section 28(iiid) Accordingly assessee appeal is dismissed Depreciation - Tribunal in the case of Daleep S. Chandnani v. ACIT wherein it was held that the nomenclature of commercial vehicles should not be so construed as to deprive the assessee of higher depreciation when all the conditions specified in the Act and the Rules had been met by the assessee Decided in the favour of the assessee Capital expenditure claimed by assessee on research and development - ld. Counsel for the assessee has not been able to produce the said bills and in the absence of the same, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the disallowance made by the A.O. on this issue to the extent of Rs. 39,76,739/- for want of supporting bills As regards the balance disallowance of Rs. 7,70,190/- made by the A.O. on account of work-in-progress - A perusal of the order of the A.O., however, shows that the disallowance was not made by him on this ground and the same was made on the ground that capital work-in-progress was not used by the assessee for its business purpose during the year under consideration - In this regard, it is observed that as per clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 35, deduction is allowed in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee of a capital nature on scientific research related to the business carried on by him and there is no condition stipulated therein that the relevant capital asset should have been used by the assessee for the purpose of his business during the relevant year - Ground No. 4 is thus partly allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 2,78,36,000/- on account of unutilized Modvat Credit as per section 145A.
2. Treatment of DEPB receipts while computing deduction under section 80HHC.
3. Non-decision on sub-grounds related to section 80HHC by CIT(A).
4. Claim for depreciation at a higher rate on motor vehicles.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 48,76,801/- on account of capital expenditure on research and development.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 2,78,36,000/- on account of unutilized Modvat Credit as per section 145A:
The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing dyes and chemicals, did not include unutilized Modvat credit in the closing stock, leading to an addition of Rs. 2,78,36,000/- by the A.O. under section 145A. The assessee argued that the exclusive method of valuation was consistently followed and that adjustments for excise duty would not impact profits. The A.O. allowed an adjustment for opening stock, reducing the addition to Rs. 1,40,21,212/-. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, emphasizing consistency with prior years. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contention that the unutilized Modvat credit was not tax or duty but part of purchase cost. However, it agreed that adjustments should be made to purchases, sales, and opening stock, not just closing stock, as per section 145A. The issue was remanded to the A.O. for verification and quantification.

2. Treatment of DEPB receipts while computing deduction under section 80HHC:
The A.O. treated the entire amount received from the sale of DEPB under section 28(iiid), following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals. The assessee contended that the decision applied only to cases where DEPB credit was sold, not utilized for paying customs duty. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the face value of DEPB credit is covered under section 28(iiid) and not section 28(iiib), as per the Bombay High Court's ruling. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

3. Non-decision on sub-grounds related to section 80HHC by CIT(A):
The assessee raised sub-grounds related to the reduction of income from interest on overdue debtors, netting off interest income, and netting off trading loss against manufacturing profit and export incentives. These issues were not decided by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remanded these sub-grounds to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

4. Claim for depreciation at a higher rate on motor vehicles:
The assessee claimed higher depreciation on motor vehicles purchased during FYs 1998-99 and 2000-01. The Tribunal noted that this issue was covered in favor of the assessee by a prior decision, which held that higher depreciation should be allowed if the vehicle was used for business purposes. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to allow the higher depreciation as claimed by the assessee.

5. Disallowance of Rs. 48,76,801/- on account of capital expenditure on research and development:
The A.O. disallowed Rs. 48,76,801/- out of the total claim of Rs. 85,08,238/- due to lack of supporting bills and work-in-progress not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the disallowance for lack of bills but allowed the claim for work-in-progress, stating that section 35(1)(iv) does not require the asset to be used during the year. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to allow the claim to the extent of Rs. 7,70,190/-.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific issues remanded for further verification and decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on DEPB receipts and depreciation on motor vehicles, while modifying the disallowance on research and development expenditure.