2023 (10) TMI 1397 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Amortization of land rehabilitation - HELD THAT - We remit this covered issue to the file of AO to adjudicate the same after taking into consideration the view and directions given in the case of East India Minerals Limited 2014 (3) TMI 249 - ITAT CUTTACK duly followed in assessee s own case 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Nature of expenses - Disallowance of Land Compensation Rehabilitation Expenses - HELD THAT - On perusal of the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1997-1998 wherein principle imbibed in the ratio laid down in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. 1992 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT as been held that capital expenditure would not become revenue expenditure simply by reasons of the fact that it was incurred in connection with business activities which ultimately resulted in efficiently carrying on the day to day business. Enduring nature does not necessarily mean that the benefit is derived for a very long period of time. Even if an asset has a life of five years, the expenditure incurred for acquiring the same, is a capital expenditure, even though the asset has to be replaced after five years and in that case, the period of five years is long enough to qualify as one bringing the asset of enduring benefit and in that case, it has to be treated as a capital expenditure and not as a revenue expenditure. Decided against assessee. Disallowance of Guest House Expenses - AO restricted the claim of the assessee company to 50% of the total expenditure - CIT(A) reduced and restricted the addition made by the AO to Rs. 1.21 lakhs on account of failure to establish the expenditure fully to the extent claimed in the profit and loss account - HELD THAT - No reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance of repair and maintenance expenditure on assets not belonging to company (roads etc.) - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee s own case wherein the Tribunal by following the decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. 2010 (1) TMI 1274 - ITAT KOLKATA is of the view that the assessee is eligible for deduction of expenses incurred on the assets not belonged to the assessee. This ground of assessee is allowed. Disallowance of coal transportation expenses paid to ESM companies - HELD THAT - As in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1998-1999 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR , wherein the Tribunal has remitted the issue back to the file of AO for determining the allowability of expenses. Provision for leave encashment - AO found that the assessee has claimed provision for leave encashment for the relevant year as fully deductible business expenditure ignoring the provisions of Section 43B(f) - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court also decided the issue in favour of the revenue in Exide Industries limited 2020 (4) TMI 792 - SUPREME COURT holding therein that, an employer seeking deduction from tax liability in advance, in name of discharging liability of leave encashment, without actually extending such payment to employee as and when time for payment arises may lead to abhorrent consequences, it is this mischief clause (f) of section seeks to subjugate and thus is constitutionally valid . Therefore, considering the prayer of the assessee we remit the issue to the file of AO to verify, examine and allow the payment towards leave encashment in the year of actual payment of leave encashment. If the same has been paid before the due date of filing of the return for the relevant assessment year, then the expenditure is allowable to such extent, if the payment has been made after the due date of filing of the return of income, the amount is to be disallowed. Ground of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of community Development Expenditure - no admissible material produced by the assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(A) to substantiate the claim - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR for A.Y. 2008-2009 find that the AO, however, ignored a very relevant and material fact that the population residing in the area which was benefitted by the provision of such basic amenities mainly comprised of the workers of the assessee-company and their families. He also appears to have overlooked the fact that such basic amenities could not have been provided to the assessee's employees in isolation as the said expenditure in any case had to be incurred for the entire area as a whole. Before us, assessee has contended that over 90 per cent of the population residing in that area constituted assessee's own workers and their families and it appears from the record that this fact has not been disputed by the Revenue at any stage. Moreover, in the absence of such facilities in that area, it would not have been possible for the assessee- company to get the proper work force for its operation without which it was not possible to carry on its business effectively and efficiently. The labour by itself is an important input for any type of business, more particularly for the business of the assessee-company of mining operation and, therefore, the expenditure incurred mainly for the welfare of the labour force has to be treated as incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of it's business. Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of social overheads fuel power - HELD THAT - The disallowance of 50% made by the AO is on higher side which is restricted to 25%. The CIT(A) has not discussed the issue in detail and only relied on its earlier order and allowed the claim of the assessee, which in our opinion, is not justified and sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restrict the disallowance to 25% as against 50% made by the AO. Thus, we partly allow this ground of revenue. Apropos, status of the issue pertaining to social overheads-fuel and power, the department has preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, however, the admission of the same was not reflected on the website of Hon ble High Court as on 31st July, 2023, therefore, till the issue is admitted and decided by the Hon ble High Court, the decision of Tribunal following the principle of consistency shall prevail and thus, has been followed. Disallowance of grants to schools and institutions - HELD THAT - Both the parties submitted that this issue has been decided by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR wherein specifically this issue was dealt with in A.Y. 2008-2009 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR wherein the Tribunal has dismissed this ground of revenue as held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company on account of grants made to various schools was an admissible business expenditure. Disallowance of welfare expenses-LPG - HELD THAT - Tribunal in assessee s own case in 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR held that CIT(A) while adjudicating this issue has followed his predecessor s order and observed that the assessee company has claimed to have treated the reimbursement of expenditure on account of the provision of LPG to the employees as perquisite and has been deducting income tax thereon, the AO s action is disallowing the above expenditure is not justified - order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is fair and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference. Provision for land reclamation/Exp. On reclamation of mining land disallowance of expenditure on plantation of trees - HELD THAT - As decided in A.Y. 2008-2009 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR uphold order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of expenses on trees plantation and others. Disallowance of claim for OBR adjustment - HELD THAT - As in assessee s own case in 2019 (12) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR wherein Tribunal following the decision of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Northern Coalfields Ltd. 2015 (6) TMI 36 - ITAT JABALPUR has dismissed this ground of revenue as held there is nothing on record to establish, or even suggest, that expenses incurred on removal of overburden at the surface level, which were capital expenditure in nature, have been claimed as revenue deduction on the strength of coal mining in another piece of land within that coal mine. Disallowance of expenditure on actuarial valuation of employee compensation - assessee has created the provision towards fatal accident under the actuarial valuation done by Coal India Limited, i.e., the parent entity of the assessee - HELD THAT - The analogy articulated by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Excide Industries Ltd. 2020 (4) TMI 792 - SUPREME COURT would be the most appropriate ratio of law that has to be adopted wherein has held that concededly, it is a provision to attach conditionality on deductions otherwise allowable under the Act in respect of specified heads, in that previous year in which the sum is actually paid irrespective of method of accounting , Since the details pertaining to actuarial valuation as well as actual payment of any compensation to employees on fatal accident were not furnished before us, also in order to work out the admissible figure i.e. the amount actually paid, verification of accounting records, working of actuarial valuation and examination of supporting evidence has to be undergone therefore, in all equality the matter merits to be restored back to the file of the A.O to re-adjudicate the issue in terms of our aforesaid observations. Disallowance of depreciation on Apollo Hospital Building - HELD THAT - The licensee was required to employ its own staff including doctors, nurses, technicians for running of the hospital, the persons so employed shall have no nexus or connection with the licensor or Coal India or any of its group companies. Such covenants / obligations cast upon the licensee clearly shows that the licensor has provided the land and building to the licensee for running of the hospital and the licensor was in no way connected with the day to day operation of the hospital - license fee is in the nature of rental income earned by the assessee and therefore, the same should be charged for tax under the head income from house property . Our view is supported by the view of Universal Plast Limited 1999 (3) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT Alternative prayer of the assessee pertaining to granting of consequential relief wherein it was the plea of the assessee that alternatively if the assessment of rent receipt from Apollo hospital as income from house property is upheld then the Ld. AO may be directed to grant consequential relief of 30% standard deduction of income from house property - The licensee was required to employ its own staff including doctors, nurses, technicians for running of the hospital, the persons so employed shall have no nexus or connection with the licensor or Coal India or any of its group companies. Such covenants / obligations cast upon the licensee clearly shows that the licensor has provided the land and building to the licensee for running of the hospital and the licensor was in no way connected with the day to day operation of the hospital. Under such facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the license fee is in the nature of rental income earned by the assessee and therefore, the same should be charged for tax under the head income from house property . See Universal Plast Limited 1999 (3) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT Accordingly, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to disallowance of depreciation on Apollo Hospital building is justified and thus, needs no interference. Disallowance of expenditure on account of land revenue - HELD THAT - From facts coming out from the orders of the revenue authorities, it is not clear whether the expenditure booked under the head miscellaneous expenditure was for acquisition of land or towards compensation in lieu of employment. This aspect needs to be examined. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the issue demands and justifies being restored back to the file of the A.O to verify the nature of expenditure incurred in terms of our observations and readjudicate the same accordingly. Disallowance of prior period expenses - HELD THAT - Considering facts to allow any expenditure which pertains to a year earlier to the relevant assessment year, in that case in order to compute the true profit and gains of the year so as to ascertain the taxable income and tax liability, it has to be seen that whether such liability was crystalized and quantified during the relevant previous year. To verify this aspect, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO to allow the expenses in the year in which the expense is actually crystallized. Since the assessee was unable to substantiate by producing corroborative evidence before the revenue authorities in support of the contention that the expenditure termed as prior period expenses are actually crystalized during the relevant assessment year, the assessee is directed to assist in the set-aside assessment proceedings before the A.O making all the requisite compliances and submissions so as to satisfy the Ld. AO with respect to this aspect. Thus, this ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Accumulated liquidated damages penalty - HELD THAT - If the compensation relates to delay in procurement of capital assets, the same should be treated as capital asset, therefore, if the amount received by the assessee towards compensation for sterilization of the profit earning source and not in ordinary course of its business, the same should be treated as capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. Considering the nature of receipt explained by the assessee towards liquidated damages on account of belated supply of machinery by the suppliers has been held as capital receipt. In the present case since the assessee was failed before the revenue authorities to substantiate the fact that the liquidated damages are capital in nature, in our opinion, when the assessee could not prove with any relevant and supporting documents as to how the liquidated damages are capital in nature, and since many of the other grounds in the present appeals are being restored to the file of the A.O in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to provide the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim by submitting relevant information/ evidence before the A.O., with the direction to Ld. AO to re-adjudicate the issue in light of our observations. Addition made on account of corporate social responsibility - HELD THAT - While the information pertaining to name, address and TDS in respect of CSR was called for, no such details were furnished by the assessee. AO further stated that under such circumstances, veracity of expenses remained unconfirmed, the reliability of expenses incurred under the head CSR was also doubtful. With all such observations, the claim of the assessee was not allowed by the A.O. On perusal of appellate order, it is not discernible as to whether ld. CIT(A) has verified the required documents, which were sought by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, which was the main cause for the disallowance. Therefore, we cannot take the finding of Ld CIT(A) on proper examination and appreciation of the facts, thus are unable to endorse the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of theoretical submissions of the assessee in deleting the disallowance made by the AO without addressing the issues raised by A.O while making the addition under the head in doubt - restore this issue to the file of AO for verification and examination - ground of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Reopening u/s. 147 - assessment was done on account of audit objection - whether the additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) is allowable on caterpillers and 240 Dumpers treating them as machineries ? - HELD THAT - In the present case, the reopening u/s. 147 was initiated after recording reasons u/s. 148(2) of the Act wherein provisions of Section 32(iia) were reproduced and had categorically mentioned that he has the reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded by the A.O has no mention about the audit objection; therefore, even if the reopening is prompted by the Audit objection but was based on analysis of information available in the form of audited accounts of the assessee and not merely on the basis of audit objection. Under such circumstances, the plea of the Ld. AR that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of audit objection, does not survive. Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) is allowable on caterpillers and 240 Dumpers treating them as machineries - Case laws referred by the Ld. AO in the case of Western Coalfields Limited ( 2016 (5) TMI 517 - SUPREME COURT in the same line of business/operation, pertains to sister concern of the assessee as observed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, having a close nexus with the nature of assessee s business, the decision in case of Western Coalfields Limited will be more apt to be followed. Accordingly, findings of Western Coalfields Ltd. (supra) based on the principle of law guided by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Baloni Ors Ltd. 1974 (9) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We, thus, hold that the disallowance on account of additional depreciation made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is on right footing and thus, sustained. In the result, Grounds No. 2(a) (b) (c) are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Provision made for mine closure - HELD THAT - Expenditure incurred by the assessee was not actually incurred during the year. On perusal of the CIT(A) s order it is discernible that the ld. CIT(A) has held that the liability was not ascertainable. Thus we are of the opinion that matter may be restored to the file of AO to verify and examine as to whether the expenditure incurred during the year under consideration. It is also not clear as to whether the amount has been credited to escrow account or not. Therefore, we restore this issue to the file of AO to grant corresponding deduction in the year in which such amount was actually incurred by depositing the same to the escrow account. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes. Non grant of TDS credit due to income mismatch - HELD THAT - It is clear from the assessment order as well as the appellate order that the assessee had claimed the credit of TDS without offering the corresponding income to the income tax and, therefore, both the authorities have rightly denied the TDS credit by virtue of provision of section 199 of the Act read with rule 37BA of the IT Rules, 1962. Ld. AR of the assessee also could not brought to our notice any cogent evidence to substantiate its claim that the corresponding income has been offered to tax. In view of the above, we uphold the findings accorded by both authorities below, in this regard. However, we direct the AO to grant TDS credit in the year in which corresponding income is declared by the assessee. Thus, this issue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Reversal of interest disputed deposits w.r.t. MPGATSVA/Terminal Tax - HELD THAT - The issues pertaining to interest on disputed deposits on behalf of third parties which are considered as liability by the assessee company, since the same belongs to deposits of third parties under trust. Accordingly, the assessment of such income should be completed treating the assessee company as representative assessee as deliberated in the foregoing discussions. The issue, therefore, is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after examining and verifying the facts of the issue. Disallowance u/s. 14A read with rule 8D - HELD THAT - In the present case, since the A.O has referred to various judgments, response of the assessee and also, made the requisite calculation, therefore, we are unable to subscribe with the contention of the assessee that there was no application of mind, and the addition was made under mechanical approach. Sufficient interest free funds for investing in investments having interest free income, therefore, disallowance u/s. 14A is not justified - Whether the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D made by the Ld. AO will survive or not is dependent on verification of facts from the financials of the assessee and also, depends upon the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in Maxoop Investment 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT wherein the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D and their applicability has been interpreted. - issue should be restored back to the file of the A.O for adjudicating the same afresh. Disallowance of expenditure on computer software - CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO stating that the computer software is an asset and eligible for 60% tax depreciation and, hence, 40% of the cost of the computer software should be added back to the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT - We may accept the fact submitted by assessee that the computer software requires upgradation or renewal after one year or two years, in such a situation, the expenditure incurred on software under the normal accounting parlance shall be allowed according to the life of software on pro-rata basis, based on usage in the relevant assessment year. Since such details of usage are not readily available or would be difficult to fetch according to Ld. AR, it would be appropriate to allow depreciation according to the mandate of law - authorities below have rightly added 40% of the cost of the computer software to the total income of the assessee. Assessee can claim depreciation on the computer software in the subsequent years. Thus, we direct the AO to allow the depreciation on the computer software in the subsequent years on production of the material evidence and documents relating to actual amount of purchase of computer software. This issue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of land crop compensation - HELD THAT - We send this issue back to the file of the A.O to verify the nature of the expenditure incurred, if the same is in lieu of employment which helps the assessee company to avoid recurring revenue expenditure in the nature of salary and other administrative legal hassles, then the same would be considered as revenue in nature and should be treated as an allowable expenditure. Write off/depreciation of railway siding leased out to Aryan Coal Beneficiation (ACB) - HELD THAT - AO has rightly relied on the Section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269UA - assessee is not eligible to claim depreciation as the asset of the assessee has already been given on lease and currently not in possession of the assessee - AR by way of submission or arguments was also unable to substantiate that how the case laws relied upon are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and helpful in substantiating contention of the assessee. Accordingly, no good reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance made - thus, we dismiss this ground of assessee. Disallowance of sustainable development as Cap. Expenditure - HELD THAT - CIT(A), allowing the expenditure incurred under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, following the same Coal India Limited, the parent company of the Assessee had issued a communication to all its subsidiaries, mandating creation of such reserve and incurrence of such expenditure, which was mandatory in the business interest and expediency of the assessee s business. Such information has been duly substantiated with the supporting evidence, accordingly Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of principal of consistency has allowed such expenditure and deleted the addition/disallowance made by the AO. Such a finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue is found convincing and justified - we dismiss this ground of revenue. Disallowance of payments made to Coal India Sports Promotion Fund CISP - HELD THAT - Incurrence of expenditure for CISP fund was an unavoidable regulatory necessity for functioning of the business activities of the company and for business expediency - expenses incurred on direction of the holding company in accordance with the policies of Government are mandatory and beyond the control of the assessee cannot be said to be non-business in nature.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Land Compensation & Rehabilitation Expenses
2. Disallowance of Guest House Expenses
3. Disallowance of expenditure on assets not belonging to the company (roads etc.)
4. Disallowance of coal transportation expense paid to ESM companies
5. Provision for leave encashment
6. Disallowance of Amortization of land rehabilitation
7. Disallowance of community Development Expenditure
8. Disallowance of social overheads fuel & power
9. Disallowance of grants to schools and institutions
10. Disallowance of welfare expenses-LPG
11. Disallowance of overburden removal expenses
12. Disallowance of expenditure on actuarial valuation of employee compensation
13. Disallowance of depreciation on Apollo Hospital Building
14. Disallowance of expenditure on account of land revenue
15. Disallowance of prior period expenses
16. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act
17. Disallowance of accumulated liquidated damages penalty
18. Short grant of TDS/TCS credit
19. Levy of interest u/s. 234 B, C, D of the Act
20. Disallowance of CSR Expenses
21. Disallowance of provision for mine closure
22. Disallowance of sustainable development expenses
23. Disallowance of payments made to Coal India Sports Promotion Fund
24. Write off/Depreciation of Railway Siding leased out to Aryan Coal Beneficiation (ACB)
25. Disallowance u/s. 14A read with rule 8D
26. Disallowance of expenditure on computer software
27. Disallowance of land crop compensation

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Land Compensation & Rehabilitation Expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of land compensation and rehabilitation expenses, following the principle that such expenses are capital in nature and not allowable as revenue expenditure.

2. Disallowance of Guest House Expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of guest house expenses, noting that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the guest houses were used exclusively for business purposes.

3. Disallowance of expenditure on assets not belonging to the company (roads etc.):
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of expenses incurred on assets not belonging to the company, such as roads, as these expenses were incurred for the business and were necessary for the smooth operation of the company's activities.

4. Disallowance of coal transportation expense paid to ESM companies:
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to determine the allowability of expenses for coal transportation paid to ESM companies, directing the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions and compliance with TDS provisions.

5. Provision for leave encashment:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify if the payment towards leave encashment was made before the due date of filing the return. If paid before the due date, the expenditure is allowable; otherwise, it is to be disallowed.

6. Disallowance of Amortization of land rehabilitation:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to adjudicate the matter in line with the decision of the ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of East India Minerals Limited.

7. Disallowance of community Development Expenditure:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of community development expenditure, noting that such expenses were incurred for the welfare of the employees and were necessary for the business operations.

8. Disallowance of social overheads fuel & power:
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 25% of the total expenditure claimed under this head, noting that the AO's estimate of 50% was on the higher side.

9. Disallowance of grants to schools and institutions:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of grants to schools and institutions, following the principle that such expenses were incurred for the welfare of employees and were allowable as business expenditure.

10. Disallowance of welfare expenses-LPG:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of welfare expenses for LPG, noting that these expenses were treated as perquisites and income tax was deducted thereon.

11. Disallowance of overburden removal expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of overburden removal expenses, following the decision of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Northern Coalfields Ltd.

12. Disallowance of expenditure on actuarial valuation of employee compensation:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify and allow the provision for employee compensation on fatal accidents in the year of actual payment.

13. Disallowance of depreciation on Apollo Hospital Building:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the Apollo Hospital Building, treating the rental income as income from house property. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow standard deduction while computing the income from house property.

14. Disallowance of expenditure on account of land revenue:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify the nature of the expenditure and allow it as revenue expenditure if it was incurred for business purposes.

15. Disallowance of prior period expenses:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify if the expenses were crystallized during the relevant assessment year and allow them accordingly.

16. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to allow the assessee to furnish evidence that the deductees filed their income tax returns and included the payments in their total income.

17. Disallowance of accumulated liquidated damages penalty:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify the nature of the liquidated damages and allow them as capital or revenue expenditure accordingly.

18. Short grant of TDS/TCS credit:
The Tribunal directed the AO to grant TDS credit in the year in which the corresponding income is declared by the assessee.

19. Levy of interest u/s. 234 B, C, D of the Act:
The issues regarding the levy of interest u/s. 234B, 234C, and 234D are consequential and do not need separate adjudication.

20. Disallowance of CSR Expenses:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify the documents and allow the expenses if they were incurred for business purposes.

21. Disallowance of provision for mine closure:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to grant corresponding deduction in the year in which the amount was deposited into the escrow account.

22. Disallowance of sustainable development expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of sustainable development expenses, noting that these expenses were incurred as per government guidelines and were necessary for business operations.

23. Disallowance of payments made to Coal India Sports Promotion Fund:
The Tribunal allowed the expenses incurred towards the Coal India Sports Promotion Fund, noting that these expenses were mandatory as per government guidelines and were necessary for business operations.

24. Write off/Depreciation of Railway Siding leased out to Aryan Coal Beneficiation (ACB):
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the railway siding leased out to Aryan Coal Beneficiation, noting that the asset was not used for business purposes by the assessee.

25. Disallowance u/s. 14A read with rule 8D:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to adjudicate the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D afresh in light of the judicial pronouncements and the availability of interest-free funds.

26. Disallowance of expenditure on computer software:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation on computer software in subsequent years, noting that the expenditure incurred on software should be allowed based on its usage.

27. Disallowance of land crop compensation:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify the nature of the expenditure and allow it as revenue expenditure if it was incurred for business purposes.