2015 (1) TMI 1025 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of obsolescence charges in respect of certain nonmoving imported spare parts - Tribunal allowed deduction - Held that - So far as question is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., 2007 (11) TMI 281 - SUPREME Court has held that (i) there was no undervaluation of stock, where the assessee had valued its obsolete stock at 10 per cent and had sold it in the next year at less than that value and (ii) the amount written back in the profit and loss account by way of adjustment on a recomputation of the depreciation on the basis of a circular of the Company Law Board could not be reduced from the profit eligible under section 32AB, and (iii) interest from customers and sales tax set off received by the assessee, being profits of the business under the head Profits and gains of business or profession could not be excluded while calculating the deduction under section 80HHC. An appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court by the Department against the said decision. The said appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court leaving the question of law open. - Decided in favour of assessee. Deduction in respect of guest house disallowed - ITAT allowed the deduction - Held that - While the two expressions, 'premises and buildings' and 'residential accommodation including any accommodation in the nature of guest house' can be similarly interpreted, a distinction has been sought to be introduced for the purposes of Section 37 by specifying the nature of building to be a guest house. In our view, the intention of the Legislature appears to be clear and unambiguous and was intended to exclude the expenses towards rents, repairs and also maintenance of premises/accommodation used for the purposes of a guest house of the nature indicated in Subsection (4) of Section 37. When the language of a statue is clear and unambiguous, the courts are to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give it a meaning which would cause violence to the provisions of the statute. If the Legislature had intended that deduction would be allowable in respect of all types of buildings/accommodations used for the purposes of business or profession, then it would not have felt the need to amend the provisions of Section 37 so as to make a definite distinction with regard to buildings used as guest houses as defined in Sub-section (5) of Section 37 and the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 would have been sufficient for the said purpose. - Decided against assessee. Telephone equipment installed in the factory, mobile equipments etc. - whether eligible for investment allowance u/s. 32A of the Act? - Held that - The word installed occurring in section 32A(1) would not necessarily mean that it should be fixed in a position, but the word is also used in the sense of induct or introduce or placing an apparatus in position for service or use as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mir Mohammad Ali 1964 (4) TMI 12 - SUPREME Court . The word installed would mean to place in position for service or use or to set up for service or use. The books would be installed when they would be placed for use in the premises in question . Hence , we answer issue No.3 in favour of the assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of obsolescence charges for non-moving imported spare parts.
2. Deduction of guest house expenses under Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Eligibility of telephone equipment installed in the factory and mobile equipment for investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deduction of Obsolescence Charges for Non-Moving Imported Spare Parts
The Tribunal allowed a deduction of Rs. 1,38,48,000 on account of obsolescence charges for non-moving imported spare parts. The Revenue contested this, arguing that the spare parts were not completely proved to be scrap and the claim did not fall under Sections 32, 37, and 28 of the Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. was referenced, where it was held that there was no undervaluation of stock when obsolete stock was valued at 10% and sold at less than that value in the subsequent year. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the question of law open. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction was upheld.

Issue 2: Deduction of Guest House Expenses Under Section 37(4)
The Tribunal allowed a deduction of Rs. 9,266 for guest house expenses, which was challenged based on Section 37(4) of the Act. The Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax clarified the provisions of Section 37. It was emphasized that Section 37(4) explicitly prohibits deductions for guest house expenses incurred after February 28, 1970. The Court noted that the intention of the Legislature was to exclude expenses towards rents, repairs, and maintenance of premises used as guest houses. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the deduction for guest house expenses was disallowed.

Issue 3: Eligibility of Telephone Equipment for Investment Allowance Under Section 32A
The Tribunal's decision regarding the eligibility of telephone equipment installed in the factory and mobile equipment for investment allowance under Section 32A was contested. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. held that drainage and sewerage networks constituted plant and machinery and were entitled to investment allowance. The Tribunal found that the telephone equipment was used for handling and transporting raw materials, finished products, and equipment within the factory premises, thus qualifying as plant and machinery. The Tribunal's decision to allow the investment allowance was upheld.

Conclusion:
1. Issue 1: The Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction of obsolescence charges was upheld.
2. Issue 2: The Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction of guest house expenses was overturned.
3. Issue 3: The Tribunal's decision to allow investment allowance for telephone equipment was upheld.

The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal's findings being largely upheld, except for the deduction of guest house expenses.

← Previous Next →