2011 (3) TMI 613 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of lease rental, paid on windmill - Lease back transaction - The case of the authorities below is that there was no need for the assessee to sell these two windmills because in any case directly or indirectly these windmills were utilized for the purposes of the business of the assessee - CIT (A) has followed the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-200 on similar facts, wherein, the Tribunal has allowed the deduction of lease rental on this windmill - there is considerable force in the contention of the assessee that while on the one hand the assessee s claim of deduction of lease rentals has been disallowed, the income earned by the assessee on sale of power to Andhra Pradesh Government has been assessed without demur - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding Computation of book profit for the purpose of MAT u/s 115JB - deduction u/s. 80 HHC - Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the deduction u/s. 80HHC, as actually claimed in the return and not the profits said to be eligible for deduction under section 80 HHC, be reduced from the book profit u/s.115JB - In the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd vs CIT (2010 -TMI - 77381 - SUPREME COURT) wherein it was held that In Section 115JB, as in Section 115JA, it has been clearly stated that the relief will be computed under Section 80HHC(3)/(3A), subject to the conditions under sub-clauses (4) and (4A) of that Section - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding personal expenditure - Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of miscellaneous expenses, which could not be complied with - The requisite details of travelling, such as names of persons travelling and purpose of travel etc are on record, and since complete details of expenses, other than ticket expenses, are not placed, an adhoc disallowance of 20% is made towards personal expenses - since there is no dispute about the fact of, evidence of or justification of expenses, the entire amount is allowed in full by the CIT(A) - Appeal is dismissed Regarding remission or cessation of any liability - the bank has not given a clear-cut reply, regarding the nature of remission of liability of Rs. 2,91,36,753 - in the case of CIT v. Chetan Chemical Pvt Ltd cited (2001 -TMI - 11255 - GUJARAT High Court ), wherein, the Hon ble High Court held that remission of loan does not come under the purview of section 41(1) of the I.T.Act - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of lease rental disallowance.
2. Deduction under section 80HHC while computing book profit under section 115JB.
3. Adjustment of profit from DEPB for deduction under section 80HHC.
4. Computation of deduction under section 80HHC on a standalone basis for the textile division.
5. Disallowance of interest expenditure on interest-free advances to sister concerns.
6. Disallowance of interest expenditure on loans to directors' close friends at lower interest rates.
7. Disallowance of personal foreign travel expenses.
8. Addition on account of remission of loan liabilities.
9. Disallowance of depreciation under section 115JB for inflated windmill price.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Lease Rental Disallowance:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the lease rental of Rs. 23,31,963 paid on a windmill, alleging it was part of a tax avoidance scheme involving transactions among group concerns. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, relying on earlier ITAT decisions in the assessee's favor. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting the transactions were genuine and the assessee's claim of deduction was consistent with previous rulings.

2. Deduction under Section 80HHC while Computing Book Profit under Section 115JB:
The AO contested the CIT(A)'s direction to allow a deduction of Rs. 43,26,451 under section 80HHC while computing book profit under section 115JB, arguing it should be nil as per normal provisions. The CIT(A) relied on ITAT's Special Bench decision in Syncome Formulations, which allowed deductions based on adjusted book profit. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting the Supreme Court's approval in Ajanta Pharma Ltd.

3. Adjustment of Profit from DEPB for Deduction under Section 80HHC:
The AO disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction on DEPB benefits, arguing the entire sale proceeds should be considered income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to consider only the profit element. The Tribunal reversed CIT(A)'s decision, citing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Kalptaru Colours and Chemicals, which held the entire sale proceeds of DEPB as income.

4. Computation of Deduction under Section 80HHC on a Standalone Basis for the Textile Division:
The AO included the turnover of all divisions for computing deduction under section 80HHC, while the CIT(A) directed to consider only the textile division's turnover. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, consistent with earlier ITAT rulings and the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in K.K. Doshi and Co.

5. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure on Interest-Free Advances to Sister Concerns:
The AO disallowed Rs. 109.20 lakhs of interest expenditure, alleging the assessee diverted interest-bearing loans to sister concerns interest-free. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the High Court's ruling in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.

6. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure on Loans to Directors' Close Friends at Lower Interest Rates:
The AO disallowed Rs. 4,81,022 of interest expenditure due to loans at lower interest rates to directors' close friends. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and the commercial expediency was not questioned.

7. Disallowance of Personal Foreign Travel Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 7,24,200 out of foreign travel expenses due to lack of documentation. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 20%. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, finding the approach reasonable based on available details.

8. Addition on Account of Remission of Loan Liabilities:
The AO added Rs. 2,91,36,753 to income, treating it as remission of loan liabilities. The CIT(A) deleted Rs. 2,66,36,753, noting the remission was on capital account and not claimed as deduction. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, distinguishing it from the Solid Containers case and relying on Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

9. Disallowance of Depreciation under Section 115JB for Inflated Windmill Price:
The AO disallowed Rs. 63,36,000 of depreciation, alleging inflated windmill prices. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Appollo Tyres Ltd.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding most of the CIT(A)'s decisions, except for the adjustment of profit from DEPB for deduction under section 80HHC, where the AO's stance was restored.