9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 360 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance out of depreciation and disallowance out of travelling, repairs, insurance expenses The assessee-company has discontinued its operation of pigment manufacturing at Kavesar factory and there was no activity of manufacturing carried out in the said factory - Held that - Following Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT 1979 (2) TMI 16 - BOMBAY High Court - The expenses incurred to protect the business assets should be allowed as deduction - The assets of any other unit having already entered the block of assets of the assessee, depreciation thereon could not be disallowed on the ground of non-user as the use of block of assets was to be considered and not the use of individual assets Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction under section 35D The expenses were incurred in relation to the issue of right shares - Held that - Following the decision in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000 The expenses are allowed as deduction Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A The assessee has earned dividend income of ₹ 3,58,40,888 and interest on tax-free bonds of ₹ 1,17,45,137 - Held that - Following assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2001-02 and Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - The Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment Held that - The rate of 4 per cent. taken by the Transfer Pricing Officer as arm s length rate of royalty has also been justified/supported by him by pointing out that the royalty of 5 per cent. paid to associated enterprise was also for use of a particular trade mark of that company to which he attributed the royalty payment to the extent of one per cent. on the basis of Government policy of automatic route - the use of trade mark was undoubtedly allowed by Oshima Japan to the assessee along with supply of technology for a royalty payment of 5 per cent. of domestic sales and irrespective of whether the assessee had manufactured the goods with the said trade mark or not, it was entitled to do so on payment of royalty at the rate of 5 per cent. as agreed between the parties - There is nothing brought on record to point out any infirmity in the rate of 4 per cent. determined by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer as arm s length rate of royalty paid/payable by the assessee to its associate enterprise - The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has already allowed a further relief to the assessee by revising the said rate upwardly at 4.5 per cent Decided against assessee. Disallowance on account of Deduction u/s 80HHC Held that Following assessee s own case for the earlier years, i.e., assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair - 90 per cent. of the other income such as, insurance claim, interest, rent etc. was liable to be excluded from the profits of the business while computing deduction under section 80HHC the amount of sale of raw material was liable to be included in the total turnover of the assessee for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of interest on the loans taken from bank as well as on fixed deposits received from public Held that - Following judgement in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2001-02 If the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds at the relevant time to make investment in the shares of its subsidiary company, it is presumed that the investments are made from non interest bearing funds Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation and other expenses related to Kavesar factory. 2. Disallowance of claim for deduction under section 35D. 3. Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962. 4. Transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment. 5. Computation of deduction under section 80HHC. 6. Disallowance of interest on loans used for investment in subsidiary companies. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation and Other Expenses Related to Kavesar Factory: The assessee, engaged in manufacturing paints and varnishes, faced disallowance of Rs. 1,47,422 out of depreciation and Rs. 1,40,479 out of various expenses by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the discontinuation of operations at Kavesar factory. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed expenses under "power, fuel and electricity expenses", "rent, rates and taxes", and "watch and ward expenses" but disallowed others, including depreciation, citing non-utilization of assets. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier orders for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT, deleted the disallowance, emphasizing that assets in the block should be considered as a whole, not individually. 2. Disallowance of Claim for Deduction Under Section 35D: The assessee's claim for Rs. 14,70,263 under section 35D, related to expenses for issuing right shares, was disallowed by the AO and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), following precedents from earlier years. The Tribunal, referencing its decision for the assessment year 1999-2000, directed the AO to allow the deduction based on quantified eligible expenses from that year. 3. Disallowance Under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D: The AO disallowed Rs. 83,20,659 under section 14A for expenses related to earning exempt income (dividends and tax-free bond interest), a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, following its decisions for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, restored the issue to the AO to quantify disallowable expenses using a reasonable method as per the Bombay High Court's ruling in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT. 4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Royalty Payment: The AO made an adjustment of Rs. 1,16,44,298, reducing the royalty rate from 5% to 4% for domestic sales to align with rates paid to non-related parties (Dupont and Oshima). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) slightly increased the rate to 4.5%. The Tribunal upheld the AO's method and the rate, rejecting the assessee's argument against using Dupont as a comparable and noting the valid rationale behind the 4% rate determination. 5. Computation of Deduction Under Section 80HHC: The AO included Rs. 1,05,39,715 from raw material sales in total turnover and excluded 90% of insurance claims, sales-tax refunds, interest, and lease rental receipts from business profits for section 80HHC deduction computation. The Tribunal, agreeing with both parties that these aspects were settled against the assessee by earlier Tribunal orders and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair, upheld the AO's computation. 6. Disallowance of Interest on Loans Used for Investment in Subsidiary Companies: The AO disallowed Rs. 10,47,375 of interest, attributing it to non-business investments in subsidiary shares. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this, citing a common pool of funds. The Tribunal, referencing its decision for the assessment year 2001-02 and the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., deleted the disallowance, presuming investments were made from non-interest-bearing funds. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal providing relief on several disallowances while upholding others based on precedent and detailed analysis of the facts and applicable law.
|
