9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 900 - AT - Income TaxCharging of interest u/s.234D - Held that - This issue is now settled that when no refund has been granted to the assessee vide intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, there cannot be levy of interest u/s.234D of the Act. This view is fortified by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramco Industries Ltd. 2009 (12) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . It is also to be noted that the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 12.4.2012 to the Senior Authorized Representative clarified that on verification of relevant case records, it was found that no refund has been granted to the assessee company u/s.143(1) of the Act, while processing the return of income u/s.143(3) vide order dated 30.3.2004. Being so, in our opinion, there is no question of levy of interest u/s.234D of the Act. Disallowance of amortization of lease charges paid - leasehold land taken on lease by the assessee and used in its business - Held that - This issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 200-01 wherein held that once lease rights for industrial lands are obtained for 30 to 99 years, then normally assessee is owner of such lands, particularly because there is always a renewal clause in such lease deeds. pex Court also in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 1999 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court held that where lease deed allowing use of land even for excavation purposes and where rent was deposited in advance, then only adjustment of such rent was not deductible. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of additional depreciation in respect of additions to plant and machinery in the previous assessment year - Held that - Tribunal in the case of M/s. I.P.Rings Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 998 - ITAT CHENNAI held that as the assessee used new plant and machinery below 180 days and therefore, additional depreciation shall be allowed only 50%. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of interest on additional excise duty(AED) u/s.43B - Held that - in the present case, the principal amount of AED is not a decretal amount. The Finance Act, 2005, prescribed the procedure to be followed for the recovery of the AED credit availed by the assessee and interest payable thereon. The Finance Act required the amount to be paid back to the government, which could be paid back in instalments with interest at the rate of 13% per annum. Therefore, the interest payable on AED is part of the duty payable and provisions of sec.43B are applicable. Being so, the argument of the ld. AR that interest payable on AED is only compensatory in nature and does not fall within the purview of sec.43B cannot be upheld. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) is justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. - Decided against assessee Confirming the refunds allowed in sales tax assessment as the income of the current year and added to the total income of the assessee - Held that - Sec.145 deals with the method of accounting. It has been radically recast with effect from 1.4.1997, so as to permit only cash or mercantile system of accounting. Further, the Supreme Court in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.I. Narayan Row. CIT 1966 (5) TMI 13 - SUPREME Court has held that sec.145 is mandatory. In view of the clear statutory provision and ratio of the Supreme Court, it may be stated that the assessee can follow only one of the methods of accounting i.e. cash or mercantile system of accounting. Since the assessee is following mercantile system, the disallowance made by the AO is in order. Therefore, no interference is called for on the action of the AO. The other plea of the assessee that it is consistently following the above practice and the same has been accepted by the Department will also not come to its rescue because reliance on rule of consistency alone cannot be the basis for such allowance - Decided against assessee Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The assessment year involved in this appeal is 2002-03 and there is no Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules at this relevant time. Rule 8D was inserted with effect from 24.3.2008 and Rule 8D has no application this assessment year. It is prospective in nature. Thus we direct the AO to disallow 2% of the total income. - Decided partly in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Charging of interest under Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of amortization of lease charges. 3. Disallowance of additional depreciation on plant and machinery. 4. Disallowance of interest on additional excise duty under Section 43B. 5. Inclusion of sales tax refunds as income. 6. Disallowance of expenses related to earning dividend income under Section 14A. 7. Levy of interest under Section 234C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Charging of Interest under Section 234D: The primary issue in Revenue's appeal was the charging of interest under Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contested the interest charged in the reassessment order dated 23.12.2009, arguing that interest under Section 234D can only be levied if the refund originates from an order passed under Section 143(1). The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) observed that Section 234D was introduced from 1.6.2003 and applicable from the assessment year 2004-05. Therefore, interest could not be charged for earlier years. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that no refund was granted to the assessee under Section 143(1) during the relevant year. Consequently, the ground of appeal was dismissed. 2. Disallowance of Amortization of Lease Charges: The assessee's appeal contested the disallowance of amortization of lease charges for leasehold land used in its business. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, which followed the precedent that lease rights for industrial lands obtained for 30 to 99 years imply ownership, making the amortization claim untenable. The ground of appeal was dismissed. 3. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation: The assessee also contested the disallowance of additional depreciation on plant and machinery. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the case of M/s. I.P. Rings Ltd., holding that additional depreciation is only allowable in the year the new plant and machinery are put to use and cannot be carried forward to the next year. The ground of appeal was decided against the assessee. 4. Disallowance of Interest on Additional Excise Duty under Section 43B: The assessee claimed interest on additional excise duty (AED) on an accrual basis, which was disallowed by the AO under Section 43B. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that interest on AED is part of the duty payable and thus falls under Section 43B. The ground of appeal was dismissed. 5. Inclusion of Sales Tax Refunds as Income: The assessee argued that sales tax refunds should be accounted for on a receipt basis, as consistently followed in previous years. The Tribunal, however, upheld the AO's inclusion of sales tax refunds on an accrual basis, citing the mandatory nature of Section 145 and the Supreme Court's ruling that the assessee can only follow one method of accounting. The ground of appeal was dismissed. 6. Disallowance of Expenses Related to Earning Dividend Income under Section 14A: The AO disallowed expenses related to earning dividend income by applying Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2002-03 and directed the AO to disallow 2% of the total income, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Simpsons & Co. Ltd. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Levy of Interest under Section 234C: The issue of levy of interest under Section 234C was deemed consequential and mandatory, to be computed accordingly while giving effect to the Tribunal's order. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in part and partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on 6.11.2015.
|
