9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 440 - AT - Income TaxProduct development cost as revenue expenditure - Assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of writing instruments - Assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 2,55,481/- as product development cost under the head other direct expenses Held that - Assessee pointed out that these expenses were incurred on the development of dyes and jigs, which were developed for a particular type of packaging for good customers and had limited life - Not accepted the assessee s contention, inter alia, observing that these dyes brought an advantage of an enduring nature to the assessee - Allowed depreciation @ 25% being 63,870/- and made an addition of Rs. 1,91,611/. Allowability of expenditure under section 80IB on account of delay in submission of filing of the audit report Held that - Assessee had filed the audit report in form No. 10CCB and, therefore, the provisions of section 80IA(7) being directory in nature, therefore held that the assessee was entitled for deduction under section 80IB. Quantification of deduction under section 80IB Held that - Assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 80IB in respect of job work charges and profit on purchase and sales of trading goods - While quantifying deduction, under section 80IB, it was computed the profit of job work in the same ratio as net profit ratio (2.63) divided by sales Also, Assessee had claimed deduction, under section, 80IB in respect of the other income amounting to Rs. 10,33,913/- - Being, not clear whether the entire sum of Rs. 10,33,913/- was required to be reduced or only profit element of job work charges had to be reduced issue restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the computation with reference to financial statements and form No. 10CCB submitted by assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of product development cost as capital expenditure. 2. Disallowance of balances written off as bad debts. 3. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB. 4. Acceptance of additional evidence not produced before the Assessing Officer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Product Development Cost as Capital Expenditure: The assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 2,55,481/- as product development cost under 'other direct expenses'. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 1,91,611/- of this as capital expenditure, allowing only depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, observing that these expenses were routine and incurred on dyes and jigs for packaging, which frequently change due to market conditions. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the expenditure did not result in any enduring benefit to the assessee and was necessary for maintaining market demand. This was supported by the Delhi High Court ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagajit Industries Ltd. 2. Disallowance of Balances Written Off as Bad Debts: The assessee claimed Rs. 6,49,295/- as balances written off. The Assessing Officer disallowed this, citing lack of evidence that these amounts were previously taken as income and actually written off in the books. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, treating the amounts as business losses under section 37(1). The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision for amounts related to Hindustan National Glass Ltd. and Mysore Sales International Ltd., noting that these were business decisions and losses arising from business operations. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if any benefit was derived from the credit notes issued by Mysore Sales International Ltd. 3. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80IB: The Assessing Officer denied the deduction of Rs. 12,53,933/- under section 80IB due to non-filing of the statutory audit report and ineligibility of job work charges and trading income. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the audit report as additional evidence and allowed the deduction, relying on judicial precedents that the delay in filing the audit report should not deny the benefit. However, the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the deduction for job work charges and trading income, following the Supreme Court's strict interpretation of deduction provisions. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s view on the audit report but remanded the issue of quantification of deduction back to the Assessing Officer for verification. 4. Acceptance of Additional Evidence: The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the statutory audit report in form No. 10CCB as additional evidence, which was not produced before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld this acceptance, noting that the provisions of section 80IA(7) are directory and not mandatory, thus allowing the audit report to be considered. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the departmental appeal for statistical purposes, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decisions on the product development cost and bad debts but remanding the quantification of the section 80IB deduction to the Assessing Officer for further verification. The acceptance of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A) was also upheld.
|
