2017 (4) TMI 1476 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 40A(9) - amount reimbursed by the Company to an institute established for running a school at Satna - Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT(A) who has deleted the addition - HELD THAT - The impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeals for the two subject Assessment Years by holding that the amounts, which were paid by the Assessee Company to its Institute for running a school at Satna in Madhya Pradesh, were not hit by Section 40A(9) of the Act as it was in the nature of reimbursement of expenditure. This the impugned order holds by following the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2012 (3) TMI 565 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Kennametal India Ltd. vs. CIT 2013 (2) TMI 627 - SC ORDER on identical issues. No substantial question of law arises

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2004-05.
- Question of whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of reimbursed amount by the Company to an institute for running a school without considering the applicability of Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 9 May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals related to Assessment Years 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2004-05, with two appeals specifically focusing on the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2004-05. The primary question raised in these appeals was whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) that deleted the reimbursed amount by the Company to an institute for running a school without considering the implications of Section 40A(9) of the IT Act, 1961.

The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for the mentioned Assessment Years by determining that the amounts paid by the Assessee Company to its Institute for running a school were not in violation of Section 40A(9) as they were categorized as reimbursement of expenditure. The Tribunal based its decision on the precedent set by the High Court in CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennametal India Ltd. vs. CIT. The High Court noted that since the impugned order merely followed the decisions of the Apex Court and its jurisdictional Court regarding reimbursement of expenditure, no substantial question of law arose, and therefore, was not entertained.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that no costs were awarded. The judgment highlights the importance of considering legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in determining the tax implications of transactions involving reimbursement of expenditure.