9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 245 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction under section 80-IA - Held that - This issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, inter alia, by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 wherein the similar claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA in respect of captive power units has been allowed by the Tribunal relying on the various judicial pronouncements as well as the CBDT instruction No. 1116. Respectfully following the said decision of the co-ordinate Bench, we uphold the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section80-IA on captive power unit - Decided in favour of assessee Determination of the nature of sales tax remission amount received as subsidy - treated as capital or revenue? - Held that - This issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, inter alia, by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 wherein the similar amount of incentive received by the assessee-company under the same scheme of the West Bengal Government has been held to be capital in nature not chargeable to tax. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue - Decided in favour of assessee Loss of one eligible unit is required to be set off against the profit of other eligible unit for the purpose of computing deduction under 80-IA - Held that - This issue of the Revenue s appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, inter alia, by the decision of the hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dewan Kraft System P. Ltd 2007 (2) TMI 149 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein held that the losses of other unit of an assessee-company not set off with the profit of another unit which is eligible for the deduction u/s 80IA - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance under section 14A - Held that - As regards the disallowance under section 14A on account of common and general expenses, it is observed that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has taken a consistent stand on this issue in several cases by holding that a disallowance to the extent of 1 per cent. of the exempt income would be fair and reasonable. Since the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his impugned order has followed this stand consistently taken by the Tribunal while restricting the disallowance under section 14A on account of common and general expenses to 1 per cent. of the exempt income, we find no infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A to ₹ 34,750 is upheld Addition made to the book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act on account of disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of exempt income under section 14A - Held that - In the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 615 - ITAT DELHI ), wherein the similar addition made to the book profit of the assessee-company computed under section 115JB on account of disallowance of expenses made under section 14A was held to be unsustainable by the Tribunal holding that the provisions of section 14A could not be imported into clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JA. Respectfully following the said decision we uphold the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of expenditure incurred on railway sidings - Held that - Revenue s appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, inter alia, by the decision of the hon ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro-chemicals Ltd. 1996 (6) TMI 64 - GAUHATI High Court as held that the amount incurred by the assessee for construction of railway sidings and track outside the refinery complex was a revenue expenditure in the year in which it was incurred since the said expenditure did not result in bringing into existence any capital asset for the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - Direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance to be made under rule 8D(2)(iii) by taking into consideration the average value of that investment appearing in the balance-sheet as on the first and the last day of the previous year, from which the exempt income was earned. Addition of the foreign travel expenses - Held that - It is observed that after taking into consideration the nature and purpose of Tata Business Excellence Convention organised at Pattaya, a finding has been recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the foreign tour undertaken by the employees of the assessee-company to participate in the said convention was for the purpose of its business and the expenditure incurred on such travel was an allowable expenditure. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Departmental representative has not been able to rebut or controvert the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this regard - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80-IA for captive power units. 2. Nature of sales tax remission amount received as subsidy. 3. Deduction on account of leave encashment on provision basis. 4. Set-off of loss of one eligible unit against the profit of another for Section 80-IA. 5. Disallowance under Section 14A. 6. Addition to book profit under Section 115JB. 7. Disallowance of expenditure on railway sidings. 8. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80-IA for Captive Power Units: The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA. The AO disallowed the deduction, arguing that the power generated was consumed by the assessee itself, and no commercial transaction with oneself could occur. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the deduction, relying on judicial precedents and CBDT instructions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar claims had been allowed in earlier years and were covered by various judicial pronouncements. 2. Nature of Sales Tax Remission Amount Received as Subsidy: The AO treated the sales tax remission as revenue in nature, while the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt. The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, referencing judicial decisions that classified such incentives as capital receipts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was covered by earlier Tribunal decisions in the assessee's favor. 3. Deduction on Account of Leave Encashment on Provision Basis: The AO disallowed the provision for leave encashment based on Section 43B, which allows such deductions only on a payment basis. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing him to await the Supreme Court's final decision in a related case before making a determination. 4. Set-off of Loss of One Eligible Unit Against the Profit of Another for Section 80-IA: The AO set off the loss of one captive power plant against the profit of another, which the CIT(A) did not approve. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing judicial precedents and the principle of consistency, noting that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. 5. Disallowance under Section 14A: The AO made disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to earning exempt income. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 1% of the dividend income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the investment was made from the assessee's own funds and not from borrowed funds. For the assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute the disallowance by considering only the investments that yielded exempt income. 6. Addition to Book Profit under Section 115JB: The AO added disallowances under Section 14A to the book profit computed under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that notional disallowances could not be added to book profits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing judicial precedents that Section 14A disallowances could not be imported into Section 115JB computations. 7. Disallowance of Expenditure on Railway Sidings: The AO treated the expenditure on railway sidings as capital expenditure, allowing only a portion as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) allowed the entire expenditure as revenue, referencing judicial decisions that similar expenditures did not result in capital assets for the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the expenditure was revenue in nature. 8. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses: The AO disallowed foreign travel expenses incurred for attending a convention in Pattaya, doubting the business purpose. The CIT(A) allowed the expenses, noting the business nature of the convention. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings. Conclusion: All the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeals of the assessee were partly allowed as indicated. The Tribunal's decisions were based on consistency with previous rulings, judicial precedents, and proper interpretation of relevant sections of the Income-tax Act. The order was pronounced on March 4, 2016.
|
