2017 (4) TMI 1352 - AT - Income Tax

Whether the interest and finance expense should be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) due to transfer of loan to the assessee in case of demerger - Held that - interest expenditure was reversed while finalizing the accounts of AY 2007 08 and was credited to the Profit & Loss account as prior period income - since the said amount has already been assessed in AY 2007 08, it should be allowed as a deduction in the impugned assessment year - the same income cannot be assessed twice at the hands of the assessee - thus the case is restored to the AO with a direction to verify assessee s claim and if upon such verification it is found that the said amount forming part of the interest expenditure, then deduction to that extent should be allowed - allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of set off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation due to demerger - Held that - re construction authority or body are transferred to one or more resulting companies on a going concern basis - thus Explanation 4 to section 2(19AA) are satisfied in case of present assessee - hence relief is granted with a rider that only the finally assessed loss / depreciation of MSEB should be allowed to be set off - decided in favor of assessee. Whether the prior period expenditure be allowed as deduction - Held that - when the AO accepts the prior period income offered by the assessee with reference to the audited Profit & Loss account, logically, he should also have allowed assessee s claim of prior period expenditure - decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings.
2. Disallowance of interest and finance expenses.
3. Set-off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation.
4. Taxation of rental income.
5. Allowance of prior period expenditure.
6. Rectification application under section 154 of the Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings:
- The assessee challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings in ground no.1 but did not press this ground during the hearing. Hence, the ground was dismissed as "not pressed."

2. Disallowance of Interest and Finance Expenses:
- The assessee claimed a deduction of interest and finance expenses amounting to ?418,24,48,398. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating the assessee had no business operations and thus no business expenditure was allowable.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, following his decision for the assessment year 2007-08.
- The Tribunal noted that the Government of Maharashtra took over the loan liability of the erstwhile MSEB with retrospective effect from June 2005. Consequently, the interest on such loan liability was not payable by the assessee, and the claim for deduction was no longer enforceable.
- The Tribunal also considered a without-prejudice claim that an amount of ?59,49,98,586, part of the interest expenditure, was reversed and offered as income in the subsequent year. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify this claim and allow the deduction if found correct.

3. Set-off of Brought Forward Loss and Unabsorbed Depreciation:
- The assessee claimed set-off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation inherited from MSEB. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it, noting similar decisions in favor of the assessee for other years.
- The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the conditions for claiming set-off were fulfilled and that similar claims had been allowed for other companies formed on the demerger of MSEB.

4. Taxation of Rental Income:
- The assessee offered rental income of ?31,49,55,816 as prior period income for the assessment year 2007-08 but claimed it was already offered in the assessment year 2006-07.
- The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the rental income was indeed offered in the assessment year 2006-07 and, if so, to exclude it from the assessment year 2007-08 to avoid double taxation.

5. Allowance of Prior Period Expenditure:
- The Assessing Officer included prior period income of ?91,28,99,951 but disallowed prior period expenditure of ?11,89,244. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the expenditure.
- The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that when prior period income is accepted, prior period expenditure should also be allowed.

6. Rectification Application Under Section 154:
- The assessee filed an application for rectification under section 154, which the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed.
- The Tribunal dismissed the related ground as it became infructuous following the decision on the rental income issue.

Summary of Judgments Delivered:
- Assessee's appeals in ITA no.7725/Mum./2011 and ITA no.2493/Mum./2011 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
- Revenue's appeals in ITA no.7830/Mum./2011, ITA no.2406/Mum./2011, ITA no.7831/Mum./2011, ITA no.334/Mum./2013, and ITA no.5904/Mum./2013 were dismissed.
- Assessee's appeals in ITA no.7726/Mum./2011, ITA no.7727/Mum./2011, ITA no.7563/Mum./2011, and ITA no.6178/Mum./2013 were dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decisions addressed the various issues raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, providing detailed reasoning for the disallowance or allowance of claims, and ensuring that income was not taxed twice. The Tribunal's directions for verification and consideration of specific claims aimed to ensure accurate and fair assessment.

← Previous Next →