2010 (12) TMI 581 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance - Deduction u/s. 80 HHC Hence, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd v CIT, 327 ITR 305(SC) - Therefore, direct the Assessing officer to grant deduction of Rs. 78,85,986/- on account of deduction u/s. 80 HHC in computation of book profit under section 115JB as was claimed by the assessee. expenditure on catalysts - lease rentals - since the matter has not reached finality inasmuch as the issue has traveled in appeal before the higher forum, it is necessary to keep the grievance alive as a measure of abundant caution. In view of the facts submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the grievances so raised above must be dismissed as infructuous at this stage. Sundry balances written off As per the Hon ble Supreme Court judgement in the case TRF Ltd vs CIT (323 ITR 397), wherein, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that a mere write off of the debt is enough to claim deduction as bad debt and that the assesse is required to establish that amounts have actually become bad, the assesse must succeed in his claim - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) - the assesse pointed out, that both the related enterprises are in the highest tax brackets and even it is assumed that the market price is unreasonable or excessive, such transaction will be entirely tax neutral Hence, there is lesser motive for manipulating price on which related organisations entered into transactions -Ffind it difficult to approve the disallowance sustained by the CIT (A) because not only that the authorities below are completely disregarded the quality aspect but also,any variation in transaction price on the given facts is tax neutral and, therefore, there is no good reason to do so Thus, direct the AO to delete the disallowance. Disallowance u/s.14A - The disallowance @ 10% for the proportionate management expenditure indeed appears to be excessive inasmuch as no reasons have been assigned by any of the authorities below to demonstrate any direct expenses incurred for earning the dividend income or to demonstrate that such a higher percentage of overall expenditure can indeed be attributed to the activities relating to earning of dividend income-particularly it is not even the case of the revenue that any borrowed funds have been used in making the investment - Therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the quantum of disallowance to 2% of the dividend income - The assesse gets relief accordingly

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of book profit under section 115JB and deduction under section 80 HHC.
2. Disallowance under section 14A.
3. Deduction of expenditure on catalysts and lease rentals.
4. Disallowance of prior period expenses.
5. Disallowance of bad debts.
6. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b).
7. Disallowance related to dividend income under section 14A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JB and Deduction under Section 80 HHC:
The assessee contested the non-reduction of Rs. 78,85,986/- for deduction under section 80 HHC while computing book profit under section 115JB. The representatives agreed that the issue is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Ajanta Pharma Ltd v CIT, which favored the assessee. Consequently, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction as claimed by the assessee. Ground No.1 was thus allowed.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The assessee did not press Ground No.2 related to the disallowance of Rs. 37,254/- under section 14A, leading to its dismissal as not pressed.

3. Deduction of Expenditure on Catalysts and Lease Rentals:
Grounds No.3 and 4 concerned the non-allowance of Rs. 3,22,94,771/- for expenditure on catalysts and Rs. 25,84,492/- for lease rentals. These were alternative claims, and since the original claim was upheld by the CIT (A), the tribunal dismissed these grounds as infructuous.

4. Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses:
Grounds No.5 and 6 pertained to the disallowance of Rs. 11,10,884/- as prior period expenses and the non-allowance of Rs. 5,09,529/- disallowed in the next year. The tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's case for AY 1996-97, which held that prior period expenses should be allowed in the year they were incurred. Consequently, Ground No.5 was dismissed, and Ground No.6 was allowed.

5. Disallowance of Bad Debts:
In AY 2004-05, the assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 13,13,365/- for sundry balances written off. The tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd vs CIT, held that a mere write-off is sufficient to claim deduction as bad debt. Therefore, the tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance, allowing Ground No.5.

6. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b):
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 7,98,673/- for purchases from a sister concern. The tribunal noted that quality and timely supply are relevant factors in determining fair market value and that both related enterprises were in the highest tax brackets, making the transaction tax neutral. The tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance, allowing Ground No.6.

7. Disallowance Related to Dividend Income under Section 14A:
Ground No.7 involved a disallowance of Rs. 3,12,953/- under section 14A. The tribunal found the 10% disallowance excessive and directed it to be restricted to 2% of the dividend income, as had been accepted in prior years. This ground was partly allowed.

Appeals for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05:
For AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05, the tribunal followed its decisions for AY 2002-03 regarding prior period expenses, lease rentals, and expenditure on catalysts, dismissing or allowing grounds accordingly. Additionally, the tribunal allowed the claim for bad debts and disallowed the excessive disallowance under section 14A, consistent with its earlier rulings.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed, with specific directions for the Assessing Officer to follow the tribunal's rulings on each issue. The judgments were pronounced in open court on 29.12.2010.