9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1297 - AT - Income TaxEligible for deduction u/s 80IB(11A) - income of kasar (discount) treated as not not derived from the eligible industrial undertaking - Held that - There is no quarrel about the fact that the assessee received the impugned purchase discount from raw materials/consumables suppliers to the tune of ₹ 2,99,1537- as utilized in its eligible business of manufacturing of specialty chemicals whose profits are already eligible for section 80IB deduction. Both the Id. lower authorities do not rebut assessee s books specifically stating the crucial live nexus between the discounted raw materials and its manufactured specialty chemicals. Net effect thereof is that assessee s eligible profits derived from its manufacturing activities have seen increased since raw material costs have come down due to the impugned discount forming integral part of the manufacturing process. We conclude in these peculiar facts that the authorities below have wrongly equated these facts with those involved in hon ble apex court decision in Liberty India vs. CIT (2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT ) involving DEPB sales figures. We accept assessee s contentions on merits and reject those raised at Revenue s behest supporting the impugned disallowance. Thus assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IB on the income from discount (kasar) - Decided against revenue Non treating, interest of received from PGVCL, interest subsidy received from Government of Gujarat through district industrial center and interest from FDR eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(llA) - Held that - As regards interest received from Government of Gujarat issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels 2016 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT as held the subsidies were only in order to reimburse, wholly or partially, costs actually incurred by the assessee in the manufacturing and selling of its products. Examining the facts of the case in the light of above judgment we are of the considered view that assessee has also received interest subsidy from Govt. of Gujarat for the project undertaken by the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act and, therefore, since subsidy received is also a part of profit and loss account of the industrial undertaking it is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act. We, therefore, allow assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IB As regards interest received from PGVCL and interest on FDRs certainly this income does not have direct nexus with the profit and loss of the undertaking but it is also a fact that the deposits with PGVCL and deposit with the bank FDRs have been indirectly carried out in the process of business only with regard to statutory deposits to be made or surplus funds deposited with Bank. Ld..As AR requested for netting of the interest income against interest paid we find substance in the argument of ld. Authorised Representative and are of the view that benefitting of netting of interest should be allowed to the assessee against the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee and resultantly there will be nil effect to the eligible profit for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB (11A) of the Act and accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed. See ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Notionally reducing amount on account of remuneration and interest payable to the partners as per the partnership deed from the eligible profit to claim deduction u/s 80IB(11A) - Held that - As the assessee was having discretion of providing interest and remuneration to partners, and in the year under appeal it decided to not to book any such expenditure ld. Assessing Officer s was not justified in notionally calculating the interest and remuneration at ₹ 10,92,653/- and ₹ 251634/- and reducing deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act by ₹ 13,44,287/-. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and allow this ground of assessee. Disallowance on account of late payment of PF u/s 36(l)(va) - Held that - During the course of assessment proceedings ld. Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of ₹ 31,421/- being employees contribution to PF Asst. Year 2010-11 deposited after the due date as statutorily provided under the Act. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) confirmed the disallowance. We observe that Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) held that if the employees contribution to PF is deposited beyond the due date as provided in the statute then such expenses cannot be claimed as deduction against the gross revenue. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the above case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) confirming the disallowance with respect to late payment of employees PF. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of kasar (discount) income for deduction under section 80IB(11A). 2. Eligibility of various interest incomes for deduction under section 80IB(11A). 3. Notional reduction of remuneration and interest payable to partners from eligible profit for deduction under section 80IB(11A). 4. Disallowance of late payment of PF under section 36(1)(va). 5. Disallowance of interest on TDS. 6. Charging of interest under section 234A/B/C/D. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Kasar (Discount) Income for Deduction under Section 80IB(11A): The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the income from kasar (discount) amounting to ?1,13,499/- is eligible for deduction under section 80IB(11A). The Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Nrox Specialities vs. ITO, where it was held that purchase discounts reduce the cost of raw materials and consumables, thereby increasing manufacturing profits. The Tribunal concluded that the discount income is directly derived from the industrial undertaking and is thus eligible for deduction under section 80IB(11A). Consequently, this ground was allowed in favor of the assessee. 2. Eligibility of Various Interest Incomes for Deduction under Section 80IB(11A): The Tribunal examined the eligibility of interest income received from PGVCL, interest subsidy from the Government of Gujarat, and interest from FDRs for deduction under section 80IB(11A). The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels, which held that subsidies reimbursing costs related to manufacturing or sales have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking's profits. Therefore, the interest subsidy from the Government of Gujarat was deemed eligible for deduction. However, for interest from PGVCL and FDRs, the Tribunal allowed netting off of interest income against interest expenditure, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Nirma Ltd. This ground was also allowed in favor of the assessee. 3. Notional Reduction of Remuneration and Interest Payable to Partners from Eligible Profit for Deduction under Section 80IB(11A): The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the notional reduction of ?13,44,287/- on account of remuneration and interest payable to partners, as per the partnership deed, should be deducted from the eligible profit for claiming deduction under section 80IB(11A). The Tribunal noted that the partnership deed allowed partners to increase or reduce remuneration and interest. It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not compel the assessee to charge interest or remuneration not actually paid or incurred. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in the cases of Tulsa Ram Kanhiyalal & Sons and CIT vs. Mundra Packaging Industries, which supported the assessee's discretion in not charging such expenses. Therefore, this ground was allowed in favor of the assessee. 4. Disallowance of Late Payment of PF under Section 36(1)(va): The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of ?31,421/- for late payment of PF under section 36(1)(va), following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, which held that employees' contribution to PF deposited beyond the statutory due date is not deductible. This ground was dismissed. 5. Disallowance of Interest on TDS: This ground was not pressed by the Authorized Representative due to the smallness of the amount, and it was accordingly dismissed. 6. Charging of Interest under Section 234A/B/C/D: This ground was consequential and did not require separate adjudication. 7. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): This ground was deemed premature and did not require separate adjudication. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, granting relief on the grounds related to kasar (discount) income, interest incomes, and notional reduction of remuneration and interest payable to partners. The disallowance for late payment of PF was upheld, and the ground related to interest on TDS was dismissed due to the smallness of the amount. The issues related to charging of interest under section 234A/B/C/D and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were considered consequential and premature, respectively.
|
