2015 (5) TMI 1163 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - When the assessee has brought out a case that no expenditure other than that disclosed in the return, has been incurred for earning the income which does not part of the total income, and in the absence of finding by the Assessing Officer that expenditure has been incurred for earning the exempt income the provisions of section 14A could not be invoked to make an additional disallowance under the facts and circumstances of the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee Allowance of depreciation on moulds (plastics) at the reduced rate of 15% as against 30% claimed by the assessee - Held that - Identical issue came up for adjudication before the ITAT in assessee s own case for the Assessment Years 2005-06; 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Tribunal has consistently decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Disallowance u/s 145A in respect of unutilized MODVAT credit - Held that - As relying on assessee s own case we are of the opinion that the issue being the consistency to be followed in the calculation of closing stocks in inclusive method as prescribed by the ICAI the matter needs to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar directions as given in the earlier years. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Depreciation on moulds (plastics) at the rate of 30%.
3. Adjustment in respect of unutilized MODVAT credit under Section 145A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:

The assessee claimed dividend income of Rs. 6.82 lakhs as exempt under Section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act and voluntarily disallowed Rs. 14,858 under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not satisfied with the assessee's explanation and invoked Section 14A read with Rule 8D, disallowing Rs. 13,71,468. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that major investments were in subsidiary companies, no fresh investments were made during the year, and the share capital and reserves exceeded the investment value, implying no interest expenditure was attributable to the investments. The assessee cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and the Tribunal's decision in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, arguing that investments in subsidiary companies aimed at holding controlling stakes should not attract Section 14A. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and found no evidence of additional expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the disallowance.

2. Depreciation on moulds (plastics) at the rate of 30%:

The assessee claimed depreciation on moulds (plastics) at 30%, but the AO restricted it to 15%, disallowing Rs. 1,55,48,775. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee referred to the Tribunal's decisions in its favor for the Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, where the Tribunal had allowed the higher depreciation rate. The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and its earlier decisions, allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation at 30%.

3. Adjustment in respect of unutilized MODVAT credit under Section 145A:

The AO noticed that the assessee changed its accounting method from inclusive to exclusive and claimed no MODVAT adjustment was required under Section 145A. The AO disagreed and added Rs. 27,15,738 to the returned income. The CIT (A) directed the AO to make adjustments as per the directions given for Assessment Year 2006-2007. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had restored similar issues to the AO with specific directions in earlier years. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, directed the AO to verify and adjust the value of sales, purchases, and inventory, including excise duty, and to allow deductions under Section 43B for excise duty paid before the due date of filing the return. The matter was restored to the AO with similar directions.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee on the disallowance under Section 14A and depreciation on moulds, while the issue of MODVAT credit adjustment was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.