2013 (10) TMI 969 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction of 1/5 of expenditure in the present year - assessee company had spent major amount and the benefit of which was expected to be derived for next five years and, therefore, in the books of account, the same expenditure was debited to miscellaneous expenses and l/5th of the same i.e. Rs.116.64 lacs is written off every year Held that - There is nothing on record in this regard as to whether in the assessment year 2003-04, full deduction was allowed or only l/5th deduction was allowed in that year. It may be there that in the books of account, the assessee has debited only l/5th of the amount in that year but in the computation of income, the entire amount can be claimed as deduction and the same might have been allowed in that year to the extent of 100%. Without examining this aspect, allowing any further deduction in the present year will result into allowing the double deduction - Restored back this matter to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision. Computation of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act Held that - A.O. has to consider the interest income as well as interest expenditure which is connected with the same and rework the deduction u/s 80IA as may be necessary. It goes to show that to the extent the assessee is eligible to establish the nexus of interest expenditure with interest income by showing that the interest expenditure was incurred for earning interest income, netting has to be allowed and only such net interest income has to be excluded from business profits for the purpose of computation of deduction allowable u/s 80IA - Revenue could not bring on record any contrary facts to the above observation Decided against the Revenue. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act - Rebate given is in the nature of discount or interest Held that - Entire sales of the Assessee is to GUVNL and the payments received by the Assessee from it are towards sales from the customer. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the rebate given is not in the nature of discount but is in the nature of interest - Rebate is in the nature of discount no TDS u/s 194A is deductible on the same, as has been held by the Commissioner(A) Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Addition on account of delayed payment charges.
2. Addition on account of miscellaneous expenses written off.
3. Allowance of deduction on interest for 80IA deduction.
4. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
5. Income not considered as eligible for deduction under section 80IA.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition on account of delayed payment charges

During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the Assessee had not recognized delayed payment charges (DPC) receivable from Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB). The Assessee argued that there was no certainty of receiving the DPC, especially in light of the reversal of claims for the year ended March 2005. The AO added Rs 3,44,55,366/- as income, which was later deleted by the CIT(A) based on the fact that GEB had denied liability for such payments. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue had been similarly decided in favor of the Assessee for AY 2005-06.

Issue 2: Addition on account of miscellaneous expenses written off

The AO disallowed the Assessee's claim of Rs 1,51,37,588/- for miscellaneous expenses written off, arguing that the expenditure pertained to earlier years. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following the precedent set in earlier years where such claims were allowed. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to verify whether only 1/5th of the expenditure was allowed in AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05. If so, no disallowance should be made in the present year.

Issue 3: Allowance of deduction on interest for 80IA deduction

The AO excluded "other income" comprising gross interest, other income, and foreign exchange fluctuation from the eligible income for deduction under section 80IA, arguing that these were not "derived from" the eligible undertaking. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal directed the AO to exclude only the net interest from the eligible income, following the decision in the Assessee's own case for AY 2005-06 and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip.

Issue 4: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)

The AO disallowed Rs 10,64,06,649/- paid as "rebate" for early payment charges to GUVNL, treating it as interest and arguing that TDS should have been deducted under section 194A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the rebate was a discount, not interest. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the Revenue did not provide evidence to demonstrate that the rebate was in the nature of interest.

Issue 5: Income not considered as eligible for deduction under section 80IA

The AO excluded foreign exchange fluctuation and income from the sale of scrap from the eligible income for deduction under section 80IA, arguing that these were not "derived from" the eligible undertaking. The CIT(A) confirmed this action, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sterling Foods and Hindustan Lever. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for verification, directing the AO to consider the Assessee's submissions and decide as per law.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal's decision resulted in the partial allowance of the Revenue's appeal and the Assessee's CO for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on several issues but also remitted certain matters back to the AO for further verification and fresh consideration. The judgments consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to precedents and ensuring accurate verification of facts.