9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1714 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of mine closure obligation - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2014 (9) TMI 629 - ITAT HYDERABAD Mine closure obligation is not a contingent liability but an ascertained liability. Since the quantum of such ascertained liability has to be determined year-wise, we direct the assessee to furnish the relevant data to the Assessing Officer towards mines closure obligation. The Assessing Officer shall verify such data and recompute the disallowance, if any, warranted, in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee's grounds on this issue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes Depreciation on lease hold land treating the same as intangible asset - HELD THAT - Assessee is entitled to depreciation as charged to the P L account in accordance with its business exigencies. We direct accordingly. On the claim of deduction/s.80G, the A.O., is directed to verify the receipts and allow the deduction in accordance with the provisions of Income-tax Act,1961 Claim of expenditure towards Corporate Social responsibility - HELD THAT - Direct the Assessing Officer to examine the nature of the expenditure claimed in this year also and accordingly redetermine the allowability of such expenditure in accordance with law and in consonance with the observations of the Tribunal for earlier years.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance on account of mine closure obligation. 2. Treatment of mine closure obligation as an ascertained liability. 3. Allowance of depreciation on leasehold land as an intangible asset. 4. Allowance of expenditure towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Disallowance on Account of Mine Closure Obligation: The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of the mine closure obligation amounting to ?9,12,00,000. The Tribunal referenced its previous decisions for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, where it was held that mine closure obligations are not contingent liabilities but ascertained liabilities. The Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish relevant data to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification and recomputation of the disallowance, if any, in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue. 2. Treatment of Mine Closure Obligation as an Ascertained Liability: The Tribunal reiterated its stance from prior years, confirming that mine closure obligations are ascertained liabilities. The assessee was instructed to provide data to the AO to verify the liabilities year-wise. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. 3. Allowance of Depreciation on Leasehold Land as an Intangible Asset: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation on leasehold land, treated as an intangible asset, amounting to ?14,19,31,410. The Tribunal cited its earlier decisions for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, where it was determined that leasehold rights on land qualify for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made by disallowing the depreciation claim, thereby rejecting the Revenue's appeal on this issue. 4. Allowance of Expenditure Towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Revenue disputed the CIT(A)'s allowance of CSR expenditure amounting to ?63,32,00,000. The Tribunal referred to its decisions for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, where it was held that CSR expenditures, such as contributions to a medical college benefiting the local community and employees, are allowable as business expenditures. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the nature of the CSR expenditure and allow it in accordance with the law, consistent with prior years' observations. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue. General Grounds: The Tribunal noted that Grounds Nos. 5 and 6 were general in nature and did not require adjudication. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested grounds. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 9th May 2017.
|
