9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 525 - AT - Income TaxReopening - expenditure of Rs.1.59 crores during Cricket match - Claim of expenditure u/s 37(1) - Held that - The case of the assessee is that it exports its products to 65 countries, out of which some are cricket loving countries. But even then how promoting bowling activity in one country could affect sales of tyres to other countries. The expenditure incurred towards traffic signals and sponsorship of sports and the like events which has the advertisement value in the form of display of name of boards, hoardings during the events and media advertisement which cannot be connected with the promotion of cricket by way of training of the pace bowlers. - Additions made by AO confirmed. - Decided against the assessee Regarding interest u/s 234D - Held that This issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO vs Ekta Promoters, Ekta Promoters (2008 -TMI - 65270 - ITAT DELHI-E) Deduction u/s 80IA - manufacture - Crown corks, or other fittings of cork, rubber, polyethylene or any other material - Held that - There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that tyre is a rubber fitting. The material used for tyre is definitely rubber and as per Item No.27 of Eleventh Schedule which prescribes the list of articles or things not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA, disentitles the assessee from this claim. - Benefit of deduction u/s 80IA denied to assesssee.
Issues Involved:
1. Expenditure on MRF Pace Foundation. 2. Charging of interest under Section 234D of the Income Tax Act. 3. Reopening of assessment under Section 147. 4. Exclusion of DEPB credit entitlement while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. 5. Withdrawal of benefits under Section 80IA. Detailed Analysis: 1. Expenditure on MRF Pace Foundation: The primary issue across multiple assessment years (2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07, and 2007-08) was whether the expenditure incurred on MRF Pace Foundation could be claimed as a business expense under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed this expenditure as advertisement expenses for promoting the company's brand image. However, the Assessing Officer treated it as charitable expenditure, not related to business activities. The CIT(A) had allowed the expenditure, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs CIT, which supported the claim under Section 37(1). However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the activities of the Pace Foundation did not promote the business of the assessee and reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, disallowing the expenditure. 2. Charging of Interest Under Section 234D: The second issue involved the charging of interest under Section 234D for refunds granted earlier. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that Section 234D, introduced with effect from 1.6.2003, applies from the assessment year 2004-05 onwards. Therefore, interest under Section 234D could not be charged for earlier years, even if assessments were framed after 1.4.2003. This decision was supported by the ITAT, Delhi in the case of ITO vs Ekta Promoters and Oracle India(P) Ltd vs Dy. CIT. 3. Reopening of Assessment Under Section 147: The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment for the year 2002-03, arguing that all materials were furnished fully and truly, and the reopening was beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had material evidence to believe that income had escaped assessment, fulfilling the conditions for reopening under Section 147. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were based on tangible material and not merely a change of opinion. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, stating that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 4. Exclusion of DEPB Credit Entitlement While Computing Deduction Under Section 80HHC: The assessee contended that DEPB credit entitlement should be included while computing deduction under Section 80HHC, arguing that the amended provisions applied only to profits on the transfer of DEPB, which did not occur in their case. The Tribunal, however, relied on the ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench decision in Topman Exports vs ITO, which held that DEPB income accrues to the assessee even if not sold and should be excluded from computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. Consequently, the Tribunal did not allow the inclusion of DEPB credit entitlement in the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC. 5. Withdrawal of Benefits Under Section 80IA: The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA, which was initially allowed but later withdrawn in reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the products manufactured by the assessee, specifically rubber tyres, fell under Item 27 of the Eleventh Schedule, which excludes such products from the benefits of Section 80IA. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's arguments, stating that the Eleventh Schedule clearly debars the manufacture of rubber fittings from such benefits, and upheld the withdrawal of the deduction under Section 80IA. Conclusion: - The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals regarding the disallowance of expenditure on MRF Pace Foundation for all assessment years. - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of interest under Section 234D. - The Tribunal validated the reopening of the assessment for the year 2002-03. - The Tribunal did not allow the inclusion of DEPB credit entitlement while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. - The Tribunal upheld the withdrawal of benefits under Section 80IA for the assessee. Result: - The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2002-03 is partly allowed. - The appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 2004-05, 2006-07, and 2007-08 are allowed. - All the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07, and 2007-08 are dismissed.
|
