2016 (4) TMI 1324 - AT - Income Tax

Genuineness of remuneration paid to Managing Director - extra-ordinary increase the remuneration - Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) as excessive and unreasonable amount paid - Held that - section 40A(2)(b) disallowance is not to be invoked when the payees already stand assessed at maximum rate. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has also issued a circular on 06-07-1968 directing the assessing authority not to invoke the impugned disallowance in absence of any tax evasion being noticed. - Decided against the revenue. Rejection of books of accounts - Estimation of income - reduction of GP @44.1% as compared to 49.46% in the previous year - Held that - assessee had responded to all of the scrutiny show cause notices. The Revenue does not point out either any mis- reading of evidence or perversity in the lower appellate findings under challenge. We do not find any error in the CIT(A) s action under challenge deleting the impugned addition. - Decided in favor of assessee. Addition of notional income - Notional versus actual interest on delayed refund of security deposits placed with its associate enterprise - deposited in lieu of availing usages rights on industrial land for carrying out manufacturing activities. - The assessee did not pay any rent except this lumpsum refundable amount. - Held that - he assessee has already received its security amount latest by 23-08- 2007 relevant for assessment year 2008-09 only and not to the impugned assessment year 2009-10. We hold in these facts that the deemed interest addition could not have been made in the impugned assessment year as no such interest accrues or arises in financial year 2008-09. We accept assessee s arguments against this interest addition and reject those raised at Revenue s behest. - Decided in favor of assessee. Restriction on depreciation claim - bifurcation of value of the land - AO observed in assessment order that the building/bungalow was very old. No deprecation is allowable on the plot land - Held that - Both the lower authorities discuss the location factor of the land and dilapidated state of the bungalow/building in question in arriving at the impugned value. There is no material placed on record dispelling the same - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of penalties imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of excess depreciation claims.
3. Excess claim of section 80HHC deduction.
4. Loss disallowance on investment in mutual funds.
5. Section 40A(2)(b) disallowance on directors' remuneration.
6. Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance.
7. Classification of share profits as business income or capital gains.
8. Rejection of book results and re-estimation of additional business profit.
9. Closing stock adjustment u/s. 145A.
10. Notional interest on delayed refund of security deposits.
11. Deduction of interest and other charges capitalized provisionally.
12. Depreciation claim on corporate building.
13. Section 40A(2)(b) disallowance in subsequent assessment year.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of penalties imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal found that the penalties imposed due to excess depreciation claims and section 80HHC deduction were not sustainable as the quantum issues were restored to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalties, noting that the errors were neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

2. Disallowance of excess depreciation claims:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation claim after due verification, and a co-ordinate bench had restored the quantum issue back to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty had no legs to stand on.

3. Excess claim of section 80HHC deduction:
The Tribunal observed that the error in the re-computation of section 80HHC deduction was not an instance of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the penalty was not justified.

4. Loss disallowance on investment in mutual funds:
The Tribunal noted that the issue was about notional versus actual loss, not a case of no loss. The loss was partly allowed by the CIT(A), and the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro-products.

5. Section 40A(2)(b) disallowance on directors' remuneration:
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's approach of comparing remuneration with that paid in FY 2003-04 and giving an annual 10% increase was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the remuneration was already accepted in preceding years and there was no comparison with market rates. The Tribunal deleted the entire disallowance, citing the jurisdictional high court's decision and CBDT's circular.

6. Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance:
The Tribunal deleted the proportionate interest disallowance, noting that the assessee had net positive interest income. For administrative expenditure, the Tribunal found no satisfaction recorded by the authorities about the correctness of the assessee's books and deleted this limb of disallowance as well.

7. Classification of share profits as business income or capital gains:
The Tribunal held that the assessee's intention, frequency, and magnitude of transactions, accounting treatment, and holding period indicated that the share profits were capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to pass a consequential order accordingly.

8. Rejection of book results and re-estimation of additional business profit:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, noting that the assessee had provided plausible explanations for the reduction in gross profit and had furnished all relevant details. The Tribunal found no specific defects in the books of accounts.

9. Closing stock adjustment u/s. 145A:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, citing the jurisdictional high court's decision that no addition could be made on account of excise duty to closing stock unless a balancing deduction is allowed in the P & L account.

10. Notional interest on delayed refund of security deposits:
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's arguments against the interest addition, noting that the security amount was already received in the relevant assessment year and no interest accrued in the impugned assessment year.

11. Deduction of interest and other charges capitalized provisionally:
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, noting that the fundamental question of whether the interest sum was capital or revenue expenditure remained undecided.

12. Depreciation claim on corporate building:
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' valuation of land and building, noting the location factor and dilapidated state of the bungalow/building. The Tribunal found no material to dispel the valuation.

13. Section 40A(2)(b) disallowance in subsequent assessment year:
The Tribunal followed its reasoning in the preceding assessment year and deleted the entire disallowance, noting that the facts were identical.

← Previous Next →