2009 (5) TMI 29 - SC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in allowing the depreciation on research and development assets which related to the closest business of fast food division/unit of the assessee company as such not used during the previous year? - Stand of the revenue is that machinery in respect of R & D centre related to the fast food unit which was closed and therefore the assessee was not entitled to any depreciation because there was no actual user of the machinery - Stand of the assessee on the other hand is that the machinery was used in respect of both the fast food and the liquor units. This aspect needs to be factually examined matter remanded

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding unpaid bottling fees.
2. Allowance of depreciation on research and development assets related to a closed fast food unit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act
The first issue pertained to the applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the treatment of unpaid bottling fees. The High Court had previously held that the provision did not apply to the unpaid amount of bottling fees. The Supreme Court, in line with its decision in a related case, upheld this view. The Court emphasized that the unpaid amount of bottling fees, upon furnishing a bank guarantee, could be treated as actual payment under Section 43B, allowing for deduction even if not paid before the due date of filing the return.

Issue 2: Allowance of Depreciation on Research and Development Assets
The second issue revolved around the allowance of depreciation on research and development assets linked to a closed fast food unit. The Revenue contended that since the machinery was related to the fast food unit, which was closed, no depreciation should be granted due to lack of actual usage. Conversely, the assessee argued that the machinery was utilized for both the fast food and liquor units. The Supreme Court noted that the specific usage of the machinery had not been thoroughly examined. Therefore, the Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for a detailed factual examination. The assessee was given the opportunity to provide evidence supporting its claim that the machinery was used for both units. Depending on the findings, deductions could be allowed as per the law. The Court directed the assessing officer to conduct the necessary examination and make a decision accordingly.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by upholding the High Court's decision on the applicability of Section 43B and remitting the issue of depreciation on research and development assets back to the Assessing Officer for further examination and decision based on factual evidence presented by the assessee.