2013 (12) TMI 770 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The application of Rule 8D is w.e.f. assessment year 2008-09 - The disallowance in this case is to be computed on some reasonable basis - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication. Depreciation on goodwill - Held that - Following CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. 2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT - Goodwill has been held to be an asset eligible for depreciation - Decided in favour of assessee. Repair and maintenance expenses - Held that - The details of expenses incurred, filed by the assessee were not considered by the AO - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication. Website Development Expenses - Held that - The AO is not entitled to grant deduction on the basis of a letter requesting an amendment to the return filed - The assessee should have filed valid revised return for claiming the expenses - Following Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Claim of depreciation on goodwill.
3. Claim of repairs and maintenance expenditure.
4. Claim of website development expenses.

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The appeal concerned the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The AO computed the disallowance at Rs.5,07,520, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The counsel for the assessee argued that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question. The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D was applicable from assessment year 2008-09 as per a decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Following this decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute a reasonable disallowance without invoking Rule 8D. Ground No.4 was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Claim of depreciation on goodwill:
The AO disallowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill, stating that goodwill is not a depreciable asset. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the counsel for the assessee cited a Supreme Court judgment which held goodwill as an asset eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal agreed with the counsel, directing the AO to allow the claim of depreciation on goodwill in accordance with the law based on the Supreme Court's decision. Ground No.5 was allowed.

Issue 3: Claim of repairs and maintenance expenditure:
The AO disallowed the repairs and maintenance expenditure incurred by the assessee, considering it as a capital loss due to the premises not being occupied. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The counsel argued that the expenses were for renovation of premises intended for business use. The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider all details of the expenses and, in the interest of justice, directed the AO to reexamine the claim after considering all details provided by the assessee. Ground No.6 was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 4: Claim of website development expenses:
The AO did not consider the claim of website development expenses made by the assessee in a letter. The CIT(A) rejected the claim, stating it should have been made through a revised return. The counsel contended that these expenses were business-related and should be allowed. The Tribunal, citing a High Court decision, directed the AO to verify the claim of website development expenses and adjudicate it after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Ground No.7 was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee and allowed certain grounds for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reexamine various claims in accordance with the applicable laws and precedents.