9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 853 - AT - Income TaxAllowance of claim under the provision of 35DD - deduction being 1/5th of the restructuring expenses - Held that - As the matter was now sub juice before the Tribunal, therefore, the assessee did not make any claim being 1/5th of restructuring expenses in the subsequent year. However, assessee is very much entitled for 1/5th of the expenditure in the five assessment years . Thus Assessee is very much entitle for restructuring expense u/s. 35DD of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the restructuring expense claim as per provision of law.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of contribution to the gratuity fund amounting to ?4,00,438. 2. Entitlement to deduction of ?7,57,713 and ?12,61,664 on account of proportionate restructuring expenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Contribution to the Gratuity Fund: The assessee, a limited company engaged in consultancy and engineering services, had its name changed from VAI Engineering & Automation (P) Ltd. to VAI Engineering and Automation (P) Ltd. The company maintained a gratuity fund for its employees, which was approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) effective from 01.01.1997. During the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee contributed ?4,00,438 to the gratuity fund and claimed it as a deduction in the profit and loss account, but inadvertently offered it to tax in the income computation. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed the deduction, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed it without providing a reason. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, stating that the company did not have approval for the fund under its new name. The Tribunal noted that in a similar case for the assessment year 2009-10, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification of whether the necessary changes in the Deed of Gratuity Fund were approved by the CIT. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification and directed that the deduction should be allowed if the CIT approved the changes in the Deed of Gratuity Fund. 2. Entitlement to Deduction of Restructuring Expenses: The assessee raised additional grounds seeking deductions of ?7,57,713 and ?12,61,664, being 1/5th of the restructuring expenses incurred in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, respectively. The restructuring expenses were incurred due to the transfer of the registered office from Delhi to Kolkata. Initially, the AO disallowed these expenses under Section 37(1) but allowed them under Section 35DD, which permits amortization of certain expenses over five years. For the assessment year 2002-03, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the AO’s decision, allowing the expenses under Section 35DD. For the assessment year 2003-04, the claim was still pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee is entitled to 1/5th of the restructuring expenses for five assessment years as per the Tribunal’s earlier decision. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction of restructuring expenses in accordance with the law and the Tribunal’s previous ruling. Conclusion: The Tribunal restored the issue of the gratuity fund contribution back to the AO for verification and potential allowance of the deduction if the CIT approved the changes in the Deed of Gratuity Fund. For the restructuring expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction as per the provisions of Section 35DD, following the precedent set in the assessee’s earlier case. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
|
