2013 (7) TMI 647 - AT - Income Tax

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Held that - Dividend income received from IFFCO-Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. The assessee has not incurred any expenditure and hence, section 14A is not at all attracted. Deduction, if not made any valid claim in the return of income Held that - Relying upon the apex court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court , assessee can raise the issue during the course of assessment, if not claimed in the return of income - Decided in favor of Assessee. Capital Expenditure being disallowed - Disallowance of Rs. 6,17,364 being amount written off in the previous year relevant to the assessment year towards amortisation of lease amount paid towards land obtained from Noida authorities Held that - Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 2004-05 has held that the said expenditure was capital in nature and not deductible in computing the income In an analogical issue in the case Deputy CIT v. Sun Pharmaceuticals 2009 (3) TMI 587 - Gujarat High Court , decision has been rendered in favour of the assessee - However, since this Tribunal in the assessee s own case has taken a view, therefore adhering to the doctrine of precedence, relying upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case decided the issue against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A for deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d).
2. Disallowance of payment to M/s. GAIL without TDS deduction.
3. Treatment of insurance premium as deductible business expense.
4. Allowance of research and development expenses without a valid claim.
5. Invocation of section 14A for dividend income from IFFCO-Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
6. Disallowance of amount written off for amortization of lease amount paid.

1. Disallowance under section 14A for deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d):
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on a precedent where it was held that since the income was not exempt and includible in the assessee's income due to deduction under section 80P, the disallowance under section 14A was not applicable. The decision favored the assessee, following the precedent set in a similar case.

2. Disallowance of payment to M/s. GAIL without TDS deduction:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on a decision by the Ahmedabad Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which concluded that the transaction was a contract for sale of goods and not a works contract. As a result, the disallowance was quashed, favoring the assessee.

3. Treatment of insurance premium as deductible business expense:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by following a precedent where it was held that the insurance premium paid was for the purpose of business and hence deductible. The decision was in favor of the assessee based on the established precedent.

4. Allowance of research and development expenses without a valid claim:
The Tribunal noted that a valid claim can be made during assessment proceedings and referred to constitutional provisions and past judgments to support this. However, it remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to ensure the interest of justice, emphasizing that the assessee should be given a fair opportunity to present their case.

5. Invocation of section 14A for dividend income from IFFCO-Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.:
The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the Assessing Officer to compute a reasonable disallowance after considering a Bombay High Court decision, which allowed the Assessing Officer to adopt a reasonable basis for identifying expenses related to earning exempt income.

6. Disallowance of amount written off for amortization of lease amount paid:
The Tribunal decided against the assessee based on a previous decision in the assessee's case, where it was held that the expenditure was capital in nature and not deductible in income computation. The decision was made following the principle of precedence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various issues related to disallowances, deductions, and expenses, providing detailed reasoning and legal references for each decision made, ultimately ensuring a fair consideration of the facts and applicable laws in each case.