9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1841 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80HHC - Allowability of deduction on certain receipts of Scrap sale - HELD THAT - As decided in PUNJAB STAINLESS STEEL INDUSTRIES 2014 (5) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT we are of the view that the view expressed by the High Court is in conformity with the normal accounting practice followed by the traders, including the respondent-assessee and it was justified in coming to a conclusion that the sale of scrap would not be included in the total turnover . We find it relevant to direct the AO to apply the said legal proposition of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (supra) after examining the facts of the present case. Accordingly, this part of the ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance on account of Aircraft expenditure - HELD THAT - This is an issue coming up for adjudication almost every assessment year in this case. AO s disallowed 15% of the claim debited to the Profit and Loss Account consistently towards the personal use of the Aircraft by the Director and their family members. The issue came up for adjudication by the Tribunal in earlier years. The issue was decided against the assessee in all the years. On hearing both the sides and considering the fair admission of the issue by assessee, we are of the opinion, this ground for this year also has to be decided against the assessee. Accordingly, the ground No.3 is dismissed, and the same is in favour of the Revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion, that it is now binding on our Benches that the disallowance in this case should be restricted to 2% of the exempt income. Therefore, we find it relevant to give a direction to the AO to follow the cited decision in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd 2014 (8) TMI 457 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT after examining peculiar facts of the present case. With these directions, we remand this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on this issue. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Provision for warranty - HELD THAT - We find similar issue was raised by the revenue for adjudication before us for the A.Y 2005-06 vide ground No.5 of that appeal with identical directions, we remand this issue also to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision in the light of Apex Court judgment in the case Rotork Controls India Private Ltd. 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT which is relevant for the legal proposition that the estimated provision is allowable when the excess provisions is returned back as an income of the assessee in the later year. We remanded this issue as discussed in the preceding paragraphs above for the file of CIT(A). With identical directions, we remand this issue to the file of the CIT(A). CIT(A) is directed to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of re-opening of the assessment u/s.148. 2. Deduction available u/s.80HHC. 3. Disallowance u/s.14A. 4. Disallowance u/s.43B. 5. Disallowance of Aircraft expenditure. 6. Disallowance of LD charges. 7. Disallowance of club expenses. 8. Depreciation on capital expenditure. 9. Remuneration paid to directors. 10. Advisory fee treated as capital expenditure. 11. Allowability of provision for warranty. 12. Bad debts and irrecoverable balances written off. 13. Disallowance of prior period expenses. 14. Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of re-opening of the assessment u/s.148: The assessee did not press the ground relating to the validity of re-opening of the assessment u/s.148. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as 'not pressed'. 2. Deduction available u/s.80HHC: The assessee did not press the ground relating to job work charges and sundry sales. The remaining issue was the inclusion of Scrap sale income in the total turnover. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the legal proposition from the Supreme Court judgment in Punjab Stainless Steel Industries, which held that the sale of scrap should not be included in the 'total turnover'. This part of the ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 3. Disallowance u/s.14A: For A.Y. 2005-06, the Tribunal noted that Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules does not apply. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in Godrej Agrovet Limited was applied, restricting the disallowance to 2% of the exempt income. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For A.Y. 2006-07, the issue was similarly remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of the High Court judgment. 4. Disallowance u/s.43B: The assessee did not press the ground relating to disallowance u/s.43B for both A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07. Consequently, these grounds were dismissed as 'not pressed'. 5. Disallowance of Aircraft expenditure: The Tribunal upheld the consistent disallowance of 15% of the Aircraft expenditure for personal use by the Director and their family members, as decided in earlier years. This ground was decided against the assessee. 6. Disallowance of LD charges: The issue was remanded to the AO for both A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07 to apply the legal proposition from the Tribunal's order for A.Y. 2001-02, which allowed such claims as business expenditure. 7. Disallowance of club expenses: The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the principle laid down in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2001-02 and decide the issue afresh after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Depreciation on capital expenditure: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after examining the facts of the case vis-a-vis the facts decided by the Tribunal for A.Y. 2002-03. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Remuneration paid to directors: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of the Tribunal's decision in the group case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Advisory fee treated as capital expenditure: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for examining the facts and deciding the same in light of the Tribunal's order for A.Y. 1991-92, which held such expenses as Revenue in nature. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Allowability of provision for warranty: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh decision in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., which allows such provisions when excess provisions are returned as income in later years. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Bad debts and irrecoverable balances written off: The assessee did not press the ground relating to bad debts and irrecoverable balances written off for A.Y. 2006-07. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as 'not pressed'. 13. Disallowance of prior period expenses: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Tribunal's orders for A.Y. 2000-01. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b): The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of the Tribunal's decision in the group concern's case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited for A.Y. 2008-09. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: The appeals for A.Y. 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeals of the Revenue for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 were allowed for statistical purposes.
|
