2016 (2) TMI 510 - AT - Income Tax

Adjustment of brought forward loss and depreciation before allowing exemption under section 10B - Held that - We direct the Assessing Officer to consider assessee s claim of set off / adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal and Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case holding that unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward loss of non eligible unit cannot be set off against the current profit of eligible unit while computing deduction under section 10B. - Decided in favour of assessee Reallocating salary expenditure while computing deduction under section 10B - Held that - It cannot be accepted that assessee has not incurred any expenditure towards salary and bonus in respect of Vapi Unit when admittedly, it must have maintained an administrative set up also for Vapi Unit. The contention of the learned counsel that salary and bonus of Vapi Unit have been included under the head Personnel Cost as shown in Schedule 11, neither appears to common sense nor logical as in that case, there is no need to show such expenditure separately for Dombivali Unit as the assessee has also claimed such expenditure in respect of Dombivali unit under Schedule 11 like Vapi Unit. Therefore, as the assessee has failed to demonstrate with convincing reason that no indirect expenditure on account of salary and bonus was incurred in respect of Vapi Unit, we uphold the view of the Departmental Authorities that salary expenditure has to be allocated to both the units on the basis of turnover. - Decided against assessee Assessment of interest income twice by the Assessing Officer - plea of the assessee that interest income has been assessed twice as part of the business income having shown by the assessee in the Profit & Loss account and again as income from other sources - Held that - We think it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to verify assessee s claim and decide the issue accordingly. We make it clear that the Assessing Officer while deciding the issue should bear in mind that the same income cannot be taxed twice. - Decided in favour of assessee by way or remand

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Adjustment of brought forward losses and depreciation before allowing exemption under section 10B.
3. Reallocation of salary expenses for computing profit eligible for deduction under section 10B.
4. Non-consideration of additional ground of appeal regarding interest income included twice while computing Gross Total Income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 19 days. The assessee submitted a petition with an affidavit seeking condonation of the delay. Upon reviewing the petition and affidavit, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the delay and thus condoned it, admitting the appeal for hearing on merit.

2. Adjustment of Brought Forward Losses and Depreciation:
The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner (Appeals) in adjusting brought forward loss and depreciation before allowing exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO noted that the assessee had two manufacturing units, one eligible for section 10B exemption and one not. The AO disallowed the deduction claim under section 10B before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, a stance previously upheld in the assessment year 2008-09. However, the Tribunal had consistently ruled in favor of the assessee for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, and the High Court had upheld this view for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim in light of these precedents, concluding that unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses of non-eligible units cannot be set off against the current profit of eligible units while computing deduction under section 10B. Thus, this ground was allowed.

3. Reallocation of Salary Expenses:
The AO reallocated Rs. 10,88,678 of salary expenses, which the assessee had allocated only to the non-eligible unit, between both units based on turnover. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this reallocation, noting that it was improbable for the eligible unit to incur no administrative salary expenses given its substantial turnover. The Tribunal agreed with this view, stating that it was illogical for the eligible unit not to incur any indirect salary expenses while maintaining a high turnover. The Tribunal upheld the reallocation of salary expenses, dismissing this ground of appeal.

4. Non-consideration of Additional Ground of Appeal:
The assessee claimed that interest income of Rs. 1,17,254 was included twice while computing Gross Total Income-once as business income in the Profit & Loss account and again as "Income From Other Sources" by the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify this claim, emphasizing that the same income should not be taxed twice. The AO was instructed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO to reconsider specific claims and verify the inclusion of interest income to ensure it is not taxed twice. The Tribunal upheld the reallocation of salary expenses but sided with the assessee on the adjustment of brought forward losses and depreciation before section 10B exemption.