9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Disallowance of business expenses. 3. Classification of interest income. 4. Compensation under VRS. 5. Carried forward losses and depreciation. 6. Depreciation on goodwill. Summary: Condonation of Delay: The assessee's appeal was delayed by 5 days. The request for condonation of delay was accepted and the delay was condoned. Disallowance of Business Expenses: The assessee company, engaged in Risk Management, Safety, Insurance, Surveys, and Environment, had to divert its business to information systems due to business compulsions. The AO disallowed expenses such as travelling, professional fees, maintenance, miscellaneous expenses, and compensation under VRS, arguing that the business activities were closed down. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the business was closed in October 2002 and no evidence was provided to prove ongoing contractual obligations. The Tribunal, however, found that the business was continued at a low key to meet existing obligations and allowed the expenses, referencing the case of Vairavan Chettiar Vs CIT 72 ITR 114. Classification of Interest Income: The AO assessed the interest income from surplus funds as "income from other sources" instead of business income. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court decisions in CIT Vs Pandian Chemical Ltd. and CIT Vs Sterling Foods. The Tribunal, however, ruled that the interest income should be treated as business income, relying on the decision in Sujay Trading (P) Ltd. Vs JCIT. Compensation under VRS: The compensation under VRS for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 was allowed u/s 35DDA. The Tribunal allowed the same for the current year as well. Carried Forward Losses and Depreciation: The issue of carried forward losses and depreciation was consequential and to be allowed following the decisions in the earlier grounds. Depreciation on Goodwill: The AO disallowed depreciation on goodwill, arguing that the goodwill was written off and not existing on the last day of the previous year. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, stating that the goodwill was related to the old insurance business, which was closed. The Tribunal, however, allowed the depreciation on goodwill, referencing the decision in Ravindran Pillai Vs CIT (194 Taxman 477), which held that goodwill is comparable with trademarks and other commercial rights, thus entitling the assessee to depreciation. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Order pronounced on 29th July 2011.
|
