2015 (1) TMI 609 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of capital gain on transfer of plot of land at Ghaziabad - Held that - By executing the sale deed in June, 2005, the assessee has only completed the contractual obligation imposed upon it by virtue of the sale agreement, Since the process of sale has been initiated from the date of sale agreement, in our opinion, the character of the transaction vis-a-vis Income tax Act should be determined on the basis of the conditions that prevailed on the date the transaction was initially entered into. Accordingly, the applicability of the provisions of section 50C should be looked at only on the date of sale agreement. The assessee has filed a certificate obtained from the Joint Sub Registrar, Visakhapatnam, regarding market value of the impugned property as on the date of the sale agreements. The said certificate was not produced before the tax authorities. As already held that the provisions of section 50C should be applied to the impugned sale transactions as on the date on which sale agreements were entered into. Since the applicability of section 50C as on the date of sale agreements is required to be examined by the AO, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to compute the capital gains on sale of impugned properties after applying the provisions of section 50C as on the date of sale agreements. Accordingly, the order of Ld CIT(A) is reversed. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of prior period expenses - Held that - Though expenditure incurred is reported as prior period expenditure, yet expenditure is allowable in the instant year. It is seen that the expenditure claimed represent bills settled during the course of business during the year under consideration. It is otherwise too well settled law that a contractual liability is allowable in the year of crystallisation of liability Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company Limited Versus CIT (Central), Calcutta - 1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court . Having regard to the aforesaid factual and judicial positions, we delete the disallowance made and sustained by the authorities below and allow the ground raised by the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Section 14A to be worked for the period prior to the introduction of Rule 8D - Held that - Sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D would operate prospectively (and, not retrospectively) does not mean that the assessing officer is not to satisfy himself with the correctness of the claim of the assessee with regard to such expenditure. If he is satisfied that the assessee has correctly reflected the amount of such expenditure, he has to do nothing further. On the other hand, if he is satisfied on an objective analysis and for cogent reasons that the amount of such expenditure as claimed by the assessee is not correct, he is required to determine the amount of such expenditure on the basis of a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment. Remit this issue back to the file of the AO, to decide the matter afresh. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition of ₹ 11 lakhs out of loan written off in the instant year - Held that - Amount of loan utilized for capital assets shall be non-taxable, but the sum utilized for working-capital shall be brought to tax as a revenue receipt. Needless to state that AO, shall afford adequate opportunity to the assessee, while adjudicating the issue afresh. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Belated payments of employees contribution of PF etc. - Held that - Addition on this account made by the AO cannot be sustained as the assessee was entitled to claim the benefits of the amounts contributed to PF before filing the return. see CIT Versus Vinay Cement Ltd. - 2007 (3) TMI 346 - Supreme Court of India . - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of capital gain on transfer of plot of land at Ghaziabad.
2. Disallowance of prior period expenses.
3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Taxability of remission of loan liability.
5. Addition on account of belated payments of employees' contribution to PF.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Capital Gain on Transfer of Plot of Land at Ghaziabad:
The assessee sold a plot of land and declared a sale price of Rs. 2,57,76,000 after deducting brokerage. The Assessing Officer (AO) adopted the circle rate of Rs. 40,32,000 for computing capital gain under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, resulting in an enhanced long-term capital gain calculation. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the circle rate on the date of the sale deed (16.09.2004) should be used. The ITAT, however, considered the registered agreement to sell dated 27.05.2004, where the circle rate was Rs. 13,000 per sq meter, and concluded that the valuation should be based on the circle rate at the time of the agreement to sell, not the sale deed. This decision was supported by various case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjeev Lal & Anr. Vs. CIT & Anr. and ITAT Vishakapatnam Bench decisions in similar cases.

2. Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 33,12,722 of prior period expenses as they did not pertain to the assessment year under consideration. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. However, the ITAT referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which allowed such expenses as they were settled during the business course in the relevant year. The ITAT deleted the disallowance, citing that the expenses were allowable in the year of crystallization of liability.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the disallowance under Rule 8D. The ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO, emphasizing the need for the AO to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before determining the expenditure under Rule 8D, as outlined in the Delhi High Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT.

4. Taxability of Remission of Loan Liability:
The AO added Rs. 5,12,70,887 to the taxable income, representing the remission of loan liability from a One Time Settlement (OTS) with ICICI Bank. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's decision, reducing the principal amount written back by Rs. 11 lakhs. The ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish details of loan utilization. The ITAT clarified that loan amounts used for acquiring capital assets would be non-taxable, while those used for working capital would be taxable.

5. Addition on Account of Belated Payments of Employees' Contribution to PF:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 35,77,820 for belated payments of employees' PF contributions, following the Delhi High Court's decision in PM Electronics Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in Vinay Cement Ltd., which allowed such deductions if payments were made before the return filing date. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the deletion of the addition.

Conclusion:
The ITAT's judgment addressed the issues comprehensively, providing relief to the assessee on several grounds, including the determination of capital gains, prior period expenses, and remission of loan liability, while remitting certain issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the belated payments of employees' PF contributions.