2016 (7) TMI 164 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of claim for deduction of development expenditure u/s. 37(1) or in the alternative, u/s. 35(1) of the Act, allowing depreciation thereon instead - Held that - The expenditure was toward setting up a new, dedicated unit to roll out new types of vehicles, which commenced commercial production in May, 2010. The expenditure was accordingly capital expenditure, entitled to depreciation u/s.32(1)(i) of the Act. The company was here-in-before manufacturing only Light Commercial Vehicles (LCVs) (at Zaheerabad, Andhra Pradesh), and the new project entailed transfer of the technical know-how, again, a capital asset depreciable u/s. 32(1)(ii) and, accordingly, allowed depreciation thereon. At the outset, the ld. AR would concede that the issue stands squarely covered against the assessee by the order by the Tribunal in the case of its associate concern.In our view, the Revenue s stand, upheld by the tribunal in the cited decision, is in consonance with the first accounting and legal principles. We, accordingly, endorse same. - Decided in favour of revenue Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of tax at sourceon service coupon commission - Held that - we only consider it fit and proper that the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for allowing an opportunity to the assessee to satisfy him of being not in default under the amended section 201. That is, in respect of the tax deductible on the payment against service coupons, which it was liable to deduct u/s. 194C and has admittedly failed to deduct in whole. The burden of proof is clearly on the assessee, even as the AO shall decide the matter by issuing definite findings of fact and, further, separately for each dealer, whose cases could well be different in-as-much as the date of furnishing of return of income (for the relevant year) could be different, and may have perhaps also accounted for the income (on services) for different years. We decide accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of claim for deduction of development expenditure under Section 37(1) or Section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on 'service coupon commission' payments under Section 194C.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Claim for Deduction of Development Expenditure:
The first issue pertains to the disallowance of the claim for deduction of development expenditure under Section 37(1) or, alternatively, under Section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The expenditure was related to setting up a manufacturing facility for medium and heavy commercial vehicles. The Assessee argued that since the company was already in the business of manufacturing and selling vehicles, the development of new types of vehicles was an integral part of its existing business. However, the Revenue contended that the expenditure was for setting up a new unit dedicated to new types of vehicles, thus qualifying as capital expenditure eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(i). The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's stand, referencing the principles of commercial accounting and the decision in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. for A.Y. 2006-07, stating that the cost of a fixed asset includes its purchase price and any attributable cost of bringing the asset to its working condition for its intended use. Consequently, the Tribunal endorsed the Revenue's position and disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 37(1) and Section 35(1), allowing depreciation instead.

2. Disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of Tax at Source:
The second issue concerns the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on 'service coupon commission' payments made to authorized dealers. The Revenue made the disallowance based on the application of Section 194C, while the Assessee relied on a Tribunal order in Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, arguing that the services were availed by the customers and not by the Assessee. The Tribunal examined whether the Tribunal's order in Hero Motocorp Ltd. covered the Assessee's case and found that it did not, as it was rendered in the context of Section 194J, which concerns payment for technical services, whereas Section 194C was applicable in the present case. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessee-company was responsible for making the payment to the dealers for the services rendered to the customers, and the provisions of Section 194C were applicable. The Tribunal also noted the amendments to Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 201, which provide an exception to the operation of Section 40(a)(ia) if the conditions are met. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the Assessee to prove compliance with the amended Section 201 and determine the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's stand on both issues, disallowing the claim for deduction of development expenditure and confirming the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source, subject to verification of compliance with the amended Section 201. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.