2010 (2) TMI 803 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses on account of most of the expenses had been evidenced by self prepared vouchers and were in the form of reimbursement to the directors and senior executives and the payments had been made in cash. - Held that - mere claim by the company officials that they have spent more than Rs.10,000/- of entertainment expenditure cannot preclude the AO for examining the veracity of the expenditure as to whether the same was laid out wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business. However, at the same time we also find that AO instead of identifying such expenditure, has proceeded to make estimated disallowance in this regard. In this regard, we draw support from the Apex Court decision in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT, (1981 -TMI - 5860 - SUPREME Court) wherein it was held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct the errors in the proceedings under appeal. - Matter remanded back to AO. Disallowance of Travel Expense. - held that - the disallowance by the AO is only on adhoc basis without any mention of any specific discrepancy. decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of Interest on account of loan diverted to Directors as interest free advance loans - held that - The Directors of the company also have relationship with the company as its employees. It is quite common consideration in both public and private sector that employees are granted interest free advances as per the rules made in this regard. These form part of the service conditions and are aimed to retain the employees to make the compensation package attractive. - As held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s SA Builders vs. CIT (2006 -TMI - 3364 - SUPREME COURT), wherein it was held that if there is commercial expediency in granting of interest free advances to sister concerns, there cannot be any disallowance on account of diversion of interest bearing funds. - decided in favour of Assessee. Regarding allowance of ded. u/s 80HHC in MAT. held that - assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80HHC on adjusted book profit for the purpose of section 115JB.decided in favour of Assessee. regarding Provision for Bad debts in computation of MAT. - Held that - the claim that the relevant deduction may be allowed while computing book profit in the year of actual write off, we find that the claim of the assessee is a cogent one. - decided against Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance on account of bad debts write-off.
2. Deletion of disallowance on account of entertainment expenses.
3. Deletion of disallowance on account of inland travel expenses.
4. Deletion of disallowance on account of interest on loans diverted to directors.
5. Deduction under section 80HHC from profits computed under section 115JB.
6. Provision for bad debts in computation of book profit under section 115JB.
7. Deletion of interest charged under section 234B.
8. Relief on account of provisions for leave encashment.
9. Reduction of excise duty from total turnover for deduction under section 80HHC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of disallowance on account of bad debts write-off:
The AO disallowed the bad debt claim due to lack of evidence proving the debts had become bad. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, citing the amendment to section 36(1)(vii) effective from 1.4.1989, which removed the requirement for demonstrative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Autometers Ltd. (292 ITR 345).

2. Deletion of disallowance on account of entertainment expenses:
The AO disallowed 50% of the entertainment expenses due to lack of external vouchers and doubts about the business purpose. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating the expenses were claimed bona fide. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to identify specific expenses and make disallowances as per law, citing the need for verification and the Apex Court's decision in Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT (131 ITR 451).

3. Deletion of disallowance on account of inland travel expenses:
The AO disallowed 25% of inland travel expenses due to lack of supporting vouchers. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting the expenses were claimed as per company policy and the disallowance was arbitrary. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the system of fixed DA and internal control lapses do not render the claims bogus.

4. Deletion of disallowance on account of interest on loans diverted to directors:
The AO disallowed interest on loans given to directors, arguing they were funded by borrowed money. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting the company had sufficient own funds and followed the Tribunal's earlier ruling in the assessee's favor. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing commercial expediency and the Apex Court's decision in SA Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1).

5. Deduction under section 80HHC from profits computed under section 115JB:
The CIT(A) allowed the claim for deduction under section 80HHC from book profits, which was omitted in the return. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Apex Court's clarification in Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) and the principle that no tax can be collected except by authority of law.

6. Provision for bad debts in computation of book profit under section 115JB:
The assessee conceded that the provision for bad debts is not deductible due to the retrospective amendment to section 115JB. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction in the year of actual write-off.

7. Deletion of interest charged under section 234B:
The CIT(A) deleted the interest charged under section 234B, noting the amendment to Explanation 1 was prospective. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for factual examination and decision.

8. Relief on account of provisions for leave encashment:
The CIT(A) granted relief for provisions for leave encashment, noting the amounts were already disallowed in earlier years. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for examination of past records and decision.

9. Reduction of excise duty from total turnover for deduction under section 80HHC:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to exclude excise duty from total turnover for section 80HHC deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Apex Court's ruling in CIT vs. Laxmi Machine Works (290 ITR 667).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, remitting certain issues back to the AO for further examination and upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on other issues.

← Previous Next →