9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 67 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of the lease rent expenditure - Held that - As being in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal while deleting the aforesaid disallowance in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 1997-98 and A.Y. 1998-99. We are of the considered view that no infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(A) as held for allowing business expenses it is not necessary that the business should have produced corresponding income. The expenses is to be allowed if it is established that they are incurred for the purpose of the business. In this case the object and the incurrence of the expenses is not in doubt, who we find had followed the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. We are of the considered view that as the aforesaid order of the Tribunal had neither been set aside or stayed by the Hon ble High Court, therefore, we are not persuaded to be in agreement with the Ld. D.R. that the CIT(A) had erred in following the order of the Tribunal and deleting the addition in the hands of the assessee. We thus uphold the order of the CIT(A) in respect of the deletion of the disallowance of lease expenses Claim of deduction u/s 80IA - Held that - D.R. had not been able to dislodge the observations of the CIT(A) on the basis of which the claim of deduction raised by the assessee u/s 80IA had been allowed by the CIT(A) subject to certain modifications. We thus not finding any infirmity with the order of the CIT(A), therein uphold the view taken by him as regards the entitlement of the assessee towards claim of deduction u/s 80IA.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of lease rent expenditure. 2. Restriction of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. 3. Allocation of expenses to the Silvassa unit. 4. General grounds for setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Lease Rent Expenditure: The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the expenditure of ?9,18,23,048/- claimed towards lease rentals, arguing that the lease rent receivable had not been accounted for and offered for taxation, making the liability contingent or future. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing automatic load monitoring systems (ALMS), leased these systems to various State Electricity Boards and paid lease rent to financial companies. The lease rent was claimed as an expenditure based on the Matching Principle, even though the income from sub-leasing accrued only after installation. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the claim, citing the need to adhere to the regular method of accounting under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 1997-98 and 1998-99, which was upheld by the ITAT. 2. Restriction of Deduction under Section 80IA: The A.O. restricted the deduction under Section 80IA to ?18,25,79,005/- instead of ?23,00,48,370/- claimed by the assessee, attributing the reduction to deemed royalty and improper allocation of expenses to the Silvassa unit. The CIT(A) confirmed the reduction on account of royalty but deleted the reduction due to allocation of expenses, following the decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 1997-98 and 1998-99. The CIT(A) also noted that the 5% royalty reduction should not apply to the turnover related to ALMS. 3. Allocation of Expenses to Silvassa Unit: The A.O. reduced the profit of the Silvassa unit by ?3,32,06,000/- due to improper allocation of expenses. The CIT(A) deleted this reduction, adhering to the precedent set in the assessee's previous assessment years, which was also approved by the ITAT. 4. General Grounds for Setting Aside the CIT(A)'s Order: The revenue sought to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the A.O.'s decision, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in following the ITAT's decision, which had been appealed to the Bombay High Court. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the ITAT's previous decision had not been set aside or stayed by the High Court. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on all grounds. The disallowance of lease rent expenditure and the restriction of deduction under Section 80IA were both found to be in line with the established precedents in the assessee's previous assessment years. The appeal was disposed of in the absence of the assessee's representation, based on the merits of the case and the arguments presented by the revenue.
|
