2011 (8) TMI 945 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on spare parts - Revenue denied depreciation on ground that spare parts are not a capital asset - Held that - Issue stands in favor of assessee in assessee s own case in preceding assessment year. See CIT v. Insilco Ltd. 2009 -TMI - 32655 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favor of assessee. Depreciation on electrical wiring - Revenue contended that electrical wiring etc. were not machinery or plant but were a part of the factory or other buildings for the purpose of deciding the rate of depreciation - Held that - From the order of the AO, it becomes clear that his finding is that wiring etc., on which higher depreciation is claimed, are old assets. However, the submissions of the Revenue counsel tend to show that these assets were installed alongwith machinery or plant in this year. None of the lower authorities has applied the mind as to whether the cables and wiring were integral part of the machinery or buildings. Facts have not been fully ascertained in this matter. Matter restored to the file of the AO for determining the year of installation of wiring etc. and the appropriate head under which the wiring etc. should be classified. Interest u/s 234B - Held that - MAT credit should be allowed before arriving at the amount on which interest is charged u/s 234B and 234D. See CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd(2003 -TMI - 52119 - Tribunal) Transfer Pricing - ALP - assessee chose comparable uncontrolled price ( CUP ) method to justify the value of international transactions with the AEs - Revenue contended CUP method to be inappropriate - Held that - CUP method adopted is appropriate since there is no instance of uncontrolled sale either to Germany or to South American countries where the goods were actually shipped by the assessee on CIF basis. In these circumstances, we think it fit to restore the whole matter to the file of the AO for fresh determination of the ALP of international transactions with AEs. by applying an appropriate method.

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of spare parts as capital assets.
2. Disallowance of long service award payment.
3. Exclusion of provision written back to profit and loss account.
4. Depreciation rate for electrical wiring.
5. Computation of interest under Section 234B.
6. Initiation of penalties under Sections 271(1)(c), 271AA, and 271G.
7. Transfer pricing adjustments.
8. Charge of interest under Section 234D.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Spare Parts as Capital Assets:
The Tribunal addressed the assessee's contention that spare parts should be considered capital assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this ground in favor of the assessee.

2. Disallowance of Long Service Award Payment:
The assessee argued that the payment of Rs. 5,82,148/- as a long service award was wrongly considered a provision rather than an actual payment by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to rectify this mistake, but the direction was not acted upon. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, advising the assessee to approach the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer for rectification.

3. Exclusion of Provision Written Back to Profit and Loss Account:
The assessee sought to exclude Rs. 12,03,463/- from total income, representing a provision written back. The Tribunal noted that the allowability of such provisions had been settled by the Tribunal and High Court in earlier years. Hence, this claim was no longer tenable, and the ground was dismissed.

4. Depreciation Rate for Electrical Wiring:
The Tribunal examined whether electrical wiring should be categorized as "machinery or plant" or part of the building for depreciation purposes. The CIT(A) had upheld the Assessing Officer's view that wiring was part of the building, allowing a lower depreciation rate. The Tribunal found contradictions in the findings and submissions and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination, treating the ground as allowed for statistical purposes.

5. Computation of Interest under Section 234B:
The Tribunal addressed the dispute over whether interest under Section 234B should be calculated before or after giving MAT credit. The issue was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd., which held that MAT credit should be allowed before calculating interest. The Tribunal followed this decision and allowed the ground in favor of the assessee.

6. Initiation of Penalties under Sections 271(1)(c), 271AA, and 271G:
The Tribunal noted that the initiation of penalties under Sections 271(1)(c), 271AA, and 271G was not appealable and dismissed this ground.

7. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
The Tribunal considered the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,33,50,566/- upheld by the CIT(A) and the relief of Rs. 5,11,340/- granted by the CIT(A) challenged by the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the CUP method used by the TPO was not appropriate for sales made to Degussa, AG, Germany, as there were no comparable uncontrolled sales. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination using an appropriate method, treating the grounds as allowed for statistical purposes.

8. Charge of Interest under Section 234D:
The Tribunal addressed the revenue's contention regarding the charge of interest under Section 234D, noting that the decision in ITO v. Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd. was in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal followed this decision, stating that interest under Section 234D is chargeable from assessment year 2004-05 onwards, and dismissed the ground.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific grounds allowed or dismissed based on detailed legal reasoning and precedents.

← Previous Next →