9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 291 - AT - Income TaxEmployees contribution to provident fund - Held that - Following CIT Vs Alom Extrusion Ltd 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT - if the amount is deposited before filing the return of income, the same has to be allowed - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of bed debts - Held that - The assessee has not brought any material evidence on record to show the nexus of advances with his nature of business - The issue was restored to the files of AO for fresh adjudication. Deduction u/s 80IB - Interest received on fixed deposits - Held that - The assessee could not bring any evidence to substantiate his claim of direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the business of the assessee - Following Liberty India Ltd 2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT - In respect of interest earned on fixed deposits as it cannot be said to have been derived from the business of the industrial undertaking - Decided against assessee. Disallownace of interest - Held that - The assessee has claimed to have capitalized the interest up to the date of conversion of capital work in progress into capital asset - The AO has categorically verified that the entire interest has been charged to profit and loss account - This needs to be further verified being a factual matter - The issue was restored to the files of AO for fresh adjudication. Unaccounted production - Held that - The assessee has shown total production of finished goods at 60,96,408 Kgs during the year under consideration - The AO further observed that the assessee has used 3,52,313 kgs of material for home consumption - The assessee has not filed the report of expert - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication. Whether commitment charges are eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(4) - Held that - The commitment charges are in the nature of interest on delayed payments received from the customers which is directed related with the sales of the assessee - Following Nirma Industries Ltd. 2006 (2) TMI 92 - GUJARAT High Court - There is a direct nexus between the commitment charges and the business of the assessee - The commitment charges are derived from the business of the industrial undertaking and therefore eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(4) of the Act - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Employees' contribution to provident fund. 2. Disallowance of bad debts. 3. Disallowance of claim under Section 80IB for bank interest on fixed deposits. 4. Disallowance of interest expenses. 5. Deletion of addition on account of unaccounted production. 6. Deletion of commitment charges as income derived from business under Section 80IB. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund: The assessee appealed against the disallowance of employees' contribution to the provident fund under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, treating it as income under Section 2(24)(x). The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the contributions were deposited beyond the specified date. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this disallowance. However, the Tribunal found that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., which held that if the amount is deposited before filing the return of income, it should be allowed. Since the payments were made before the filing date, the AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,17,847/-. This ground was allowed. 2. Disallowance of Bad Debts: The AO disallowed Rs. 20,43,163/- claimed as bad debts, noting that the amounts were not taken into account in computing the income of previous years. The CIT(A) also disallowed the claim under Sections 28 or 37(1). The Tribunal acknowledged that the claim as bad debts was not tenable under Section 36(2) but considered the possibility of it being a business loss. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify the nexus of advances with the assessee's business. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 3. Disallowance of Claim under Section 80IB for Bank Interest on Fixed Deposits: The AO disallowed the deduction under Section 80IB(4) for interest on fixed deposits, as the assessee failed to justify the claim. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting no evidence of a direct connection between the fixed deposits and the business. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India Ltd., and dismissed this ground. 4. Disallowance of Interest Expenses: The AO disallowed Rs. 6,38,590/- of interest expenses, claiming it should have been capitalized. Additionally, Rs. 3,00,000/- was disallowed for interest on loans to sister concerns. The CIT(A) upheld these disallowances, noting insufficient evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the issue of interest capitalization back to the AO for verification and upheld the proportionate disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000/-. This ground was partly allowed. 5. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unaccounted Production: The AO added Rs. 94,18,600/- for unaccounted production based on discrepancies in production figures. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, relying on an expert opinion from IIT Delhi, which was not presented to the AO. The Tribunal found this to be a violation of natural justice and Rule 46A, and remanded the issue back to the AO for reconsideration with the expert opinion. This grievance was allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Deletion of Commitment Charges as Income Derived from Business under Section 80IB: The AO disallowed the deduction under Section 80IB(4) for commitment charges, treating them as interest on delayed payments. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, considering the charges as part of sales income. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Nirma Industries Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India Ltd., confirming the commitment charges were derived from business and eligible for deduction. This grievance was dismissed. Conclusion: The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, and the cross-appeal by the Revenue was also partly allowed. The Tribunal directed further verification and reconsideration on certain issues while upholding other findings. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2013.
|
