9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1188 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of the claim of assessee for deduction u/s 80IA(iv) - Held that - As referring to earlier AYs Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of the Revenue. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 85,14,513 in the Assessment Year 2008-09 and ₹ 1,05,98,781/- in the Assessment Year 2009-10 made in respect of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv). Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld in this regard. Addition on account of the claim of the assessee for legal and professional fees - Held that - AO ought to have appreciated that the payment to Deloitte was for consulting and seeking advice on bidding for acquisition of European cage manufacturing company since assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing bearing cages. Such consultancy was potential risk and reward attached with assessee s business; therefore the expenditure on the same is wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. Payment to Mars Export Services was for export promotion capital goods authorization; therefore, the same is also wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. The professional fees paid to Shri Mukesh Patel and Shri Saurabh Soparkar was also for consultancy/legal services against the service rendered by them, hence the same is also wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on lump-sum basis is not tenable in the eyes of law. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,00,000/- against the total disallowance of ₹ 12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of legal and professional fees of ₹ 82,58,275/-. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv) for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2. Disallowance of legal and professional fees for Assessment Year 2009-10. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv) Assessment Year 2008-09: - The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 85,14,513 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv). The AO had disallowed the deduction by invoking Section 80IA(5), which requires the profit from eligible business to be computed after deducting notional brought forward losses and depreciation, even if these were set off against other income in earlier years. - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the assessee's claim, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which favored the assessee. The CIT(A) verified that the unabsorbed loss and depreciation of the windmill for AY 2005-06 had already been set off against other business income, leaving no carry forward losses for AY 2008-09. Assessment Year 2009-10: - The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,05,98,781 made by the AO on similar grounds as for AY 2008-09. The AO found a carry forward loss of Rs. 4,12,48,605 for AY 2005-06 and, after notional set-off against subsequent years, determined a carry forward loss of Rs. 2,36,95,030 for AY 2009-10. - The CIT(A) again allowed the assessee's claim, following the same reasoning and judicial precedent as in AY 2008-09. The CIT(A) found no new distinguishable facts presented by the Revenue. ITAT Decision: - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for both assessment years, referencing the case of M/s. Jivraj Tea Company v. DCIT, where the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee on similar grounds. The ITAT noted that the AO's disallowance was not tenable as the losses prior to the initial assessment year, which had already been set off, could not be brought forward and adjusted against the profits of the initial assessment year. 2. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Fees Assessment Year 2009-10: - The AO disallowed Rs. 12,00,000 out of total legal and professional fees of Rs. 82,58,275, claiming that certain expenditures were not incurred for the existing business of the assessee. - The CIT(A) granted partial relief by deleting Rs. 9,00,000 of the disallowed amount, stating that the complete details of legal and professional fees were provided, and each expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. ITAT Decision: - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had not provided specific reasons for the disallowance and had merely presumed that some expenditures were not for business purposes. The ITAT found that payments to Deloitte, Mars Export Services, and legal consultants were all for services directly related to the assessee's business activities and were thus allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Conclusion: - The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions to allow the deductions under Section 80IA(4)(iv) and to partially delete the disallowance of legal and professional fees. The judgments were pronounced in favor of the assessee, upholding the principles established in prior judicial decisions.
|
