2009 (3) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Claim for weighted deduction u/s.35C on Expenses incurred on provision of Distillation services; Expenses on transportation services provided to farmers; Depreciation on assets used for Agricultural Research Centre, Fertilizer subsidy to farmers as cash subsidy Tribunal is justified in disallowing the claim of assessee for weighted deduction on above expenses and depreciation

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim for weighted deduction under Section 35C on various expenses.
2. Allowance of weighted deduction on fertilizer subsidy to farmers.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the rejection of the claim for weighted deduction under Section 35C on various expenses incurred. The court referred to a previous judgment where it was held that expenses on distillation services provided to the cultivator would not be admissible for deduction under Section 35C. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative against the assessee. Similarly, for expenses on transportation services provided to farmers, the court relied on another judgment where a similar claim was rejected. Therefore, the court answered this question in the affirmative against the assessee as well. Regarding the depreciation on assets used for an Agricultural Research Centre, the court held that such assets cannot be considered as "tools or implements" for use by the cultivator, based on previous judgments. Therefore, the court answered this question in the affirmative against the assessee.

2. The second issue involves the allowance of weighted deduction on a fertilizer subsidy to farmers. The court considered whether cash subsidy given to farmers for fertilizer purchase should be eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35C. The court found that if cash subsidy is granted in relation to the purchase of fertilizers, it is akin to providing services related to the supply of fertilizer, which falls under the purview of Section 35C. The court upheld the decision of the ITAT in this regard, stating that such subsidies are covered by the relevant section. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the reference with no orders as to costs, based on the answers provided for the issues raised.