2015 (12) TMI 1373 - AT - Income Tax

Reallocation of expenses while granting Deduction u/s.80IB 1, 19, 012/- which appears to be quite reasonable. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this respect. Addition on account of adjustments under section 145A in relation to excise duty and sales tax on closing inventory of raw material packing material and stores 50, 000/- and above. It is an admitted fact on the file that the assessee has no evidence to support the claim as the same has allegedly been destroyed in fire. The AO thus could not verify the said claim of expenditure. The AO despite the above fact considering the overall facts of the case has allowed the claim but has retained only 5% adhoc disallowance for want of supporting evidences which action seems to be quite justified. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO in this respect. Addition made by the AO on account of capital expenditure as against the assessee s claim that the same was revenue expenditure - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - This issue has been discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) after thoroughly examining the nature of expenses and relying upon the various case laws has observed that these expenses were allowable as revenue expenditure because no new asset was acquired by the assessee and the expenditure was incurred to preserve the existing assets. He therefore held that the expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure. However the depreciation allowed on the asset in relation to the above amount of expenditure was liable to be withdrawn. After considering the submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this respect. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore dismissed. Repairs and maintenance expenses was incurred for the maintenance and preservation of the assets and no new capital has come into existence. He relying upon various judicial decisions of the higher judicial authorities has held that the nature of expenses is revenue in nature.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reallocation of research and development expenditure for deduction under Sections 80IB and 80IC.
2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Adjustments under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Ad-hoc disallowance of repairs expenses.
5. Deletion of addition on account of capital expenditure treated as revenue expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Reallocation of Research and Development Expenditure
The assessee challenged the reallocation of research and development (R&D) expenditure for deduction under Sections 80IB and 80IC. The Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the R&D expenditure of Goa R&D Unit to the Goa Unit only, while the assessee argued that the expenditure should be allocated to all units in the ratio of their turnover. The AO also disallowed the allocation of scientific research expenditure from the Jogeshwari R&D Unit to the Roha and Pithampur units. The Tribunal found that the benefit of R&D activities at Goa-PTD was not enjoyed by all units but only certain units. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to re-examine the allocation of R&D expenditure based on the units benefiting from the research.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A
The AO disallowed Rs. 11,87,354 under Section 14A as per Rule 8D, while the assessee had made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 47,605. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 5% of the dividend income, amounting to Rs. 1,19,012. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it reasonable and consistent with the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd."

Issue 3: Adjustments under Section 145A
The assessee contested the adjustments made by the AO under Section 145A related to excise duty and sales tax on closing inventory. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification, directing the AO to examine the adjustments in light of the Tribunal's observations and the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to consider the unpaid excise duty on finished goods and its inclusion in the valuation of closing stock.

Issue 4: Ad-hoc Disallowance of Repairs Expenses
The AO made an ad-hoc disallowance of 5% of repairs expenses incurred at the Mumbai unit due to the absence of supporting evidence, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the AO's action justified, given the lack of evidence due to the destruction of records in a fire. The Tribunal upheld the 5% ad-hoc disallowance as reasonable under the circumstances.

Issue 5: Deletion of Addition on Account of Capital Expenditure
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,52,46,442, which the AO had treated as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) held that the expenses were revenue in nature as they were incurred to preserve existing assets without acquiring new ones. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld the deletion of the addition.

Conclusion
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, directing the AO to re-examine specific issues and confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on others. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the allocation of R&D expenditure and the reasonableness of disallowances under Section 14A and repairs expenses.