2017 (8) TMI 1443 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of deduction against writing off the stock - perishable product - The aforesaid stock relates to business activity which has been discontinued long time back. The assessee has not been able to show as to why obsolete stock was carried forward from earlier years. - As per established accounting principle, the stock has to be valued at cost or net realizable value, whichever is less. Even otherwise it is a trading stock and any trading loss is an allowable expenditure. We do not find any infirmity in the action of assessee in writing off of obsolete stock which was earlier carried forward in the books by the assessee - Claim allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. Claim of depreciation and interest expenditure on flat - Assessee claimed that, though, the said flat was purchased in the name of one of the Directors of the assessee company, but was in fact used for business purposes. - Held that - the issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 of the appeal has been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case 2016 (4) TMI 857 - ITAT PUNE in assessment year 2007-08. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of ? 16,90,477/- on account of write-off of obsolete stock.
2. Disallowance of expenditure in respect of flat at Khar, Mumbai (Interest expenditure ? 43,85,538/-, Depreciation ? 48,46,127/-, Telephone/Electricity expenses ? 48,000/-).
3. Deleting the addition of ? 1,66,95,244/- on account of low Gross Profit after rejecting the books of account.
4. Deleting the addition of ? 5,15,368/- u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of ? 16,90,477/- on account of write-off of obsolete stock:
The assessee wrote off stock of S.K. Berries valued at ? 16,90,477/- as it had become obsolete and unsellable. The Department argued that the stock, being perishable, should not have been carried forward. However, the Tribunal found that the Department had not raised any objections in previous years regarding the stock's carry-forward. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's action, stating that as per established accounting principles, stock must be valued at cost or net realizable value, whichever is less. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.

2. Disallowance of expenditure in respect of flat at Khar, Mumbai:
The assessee claimed interest expenditure, depreciation, and telephone/electricity expenses for a flat at Khar, Mumbai, used for business purposes but registered in the name of one of its directors. The Tribunal had previously allowed similar claims in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal reiterated that the flat was a business asset, and the expenses were justified and allowable. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee.

3. Deleting the addition of ? 1,66,95,244/- on account of low Gross Profit after rejecting the books of account:
The Department challenged the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, who had estimated a higher Gross Profit rate of 4.55% compared to the declared 4.28%. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had maintained detailed books of account and no significant defects were found. The Gross Profit rate declared was higher than the previous year's rate of 1.69%, which had not been questioned. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition, finding no merit in the Department's arguments.

4. Deleting the addition of ? 5,15,368/- u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Department contested the deletion of disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made investments in group companies in previous years and had not earned any exempt income during the relevant period. Citing various judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Limited, the Tribunal held that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted when no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition and dismissed the Department's ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claims regarding the write-off of obsolete stock and expenses related to the flat at Khar, Mumbai, while rejecting the Department's grounds on low Gross Profit addition and disallowance under section 14A.