2017 (12) TMI 536 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 43B - unutilized MODVAT credit of earlier years adjustment - Held that - This question is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. See Maruti Udyog Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 2017 (12) TMI 590 - DELHI HIGH COURT Addition u/s 43B - sales tax paid on raw material and computers in the preceding assessment years - Held that -Sales tax paid on raw material in the preceding AY was rightly allowed as a deduction in the current assessment year under Section 43B of the Act. This question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Addition representing the customs duty paid on imports claimed as a deduction under Section 43B - Held that - This was directly paid by the Assessee to the customs authorities and paid during the AY in question. Consequently, it was correctly allowed as a deduction by the ITAT. Question (iii) therefore, is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Addition of duty drawback - Held that - The issue of duty drawback in any event is answered in favour of the Assessee by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that income accrues when it becomes due but it must also be accompanied by a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount. Only then can it be said that for the purposes of taxability that the income is not hypothetical and it has really accrued to the Assessee Whether customs duty paid on 28th April 1999 can be capitalised with retrospective effect and depreciation calculated by including the said amount in the AY 1999-2000? - Held that - In view of the decisions in Sharanpur Electric Supply Ltd. (1992 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court); CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT and DGIT v. Official Liquidator (2008 (6) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Addition u/s 14A - Held that - Assessee was seized of sufficient funds which it could have invested and therefore, there was no question of disallowance of any amount on account of interest under Section 14A of the Act. Both questions are therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee AO was not justified in making the addition on account of excessive consumption of raw material/inputs for the reasons already explained therein. Customs duty paid and debited to the profit and loss account included in the value of the closing stock in view of Sections 43B and 145A - Held that - In view of the decision in Berger Paints Limited v. CIT 2004 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. In this regard, the observations of the ITAT in para 41 of the impugned are reiterated, viz. that the AO should, while giving effect to the ITAT s order, ensure that no double deduction is allowed. Therefore, he will ensure that the deduction allowed in this year under Section 43B of the Act is included in the income of the next year when such opening stock is disposed of.

Issues:
1. Treatment of unutilized MODVAT credit under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Allowance of sales tax paid on raw material and computers as a deduction.
3. Deduction of customs duty paid on imports under Section 43B of the Act.
4. Treatment of duty drawback in taxable income.
5. Capitalization of customs duty paid for depreciation calculation.
6. Interpretation of Section 14A of the Act regarding onus of proof.
7. Disallowance of interest under Section 14A of the Act.
8. Addition of excessive consumption of raw material and inputs.
9. Inclusion of customs duty in closing stock under Sections 43B and 145A of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The Court upheld the ITAT's decision regarding the treatment of unutilized MODVAT credit under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the Revenue against the Assessee.

2. Sales tax paid on raw material in the preceding assessment year was correctly allowed as a deduction in the current assessment year under Section 43B of the Act, favoring the Assessee against the Revenue.

3. The deduction of customs duty paid on imports under Section 43B of the Act was upheld as the amount was directly paid by the Assessee during the relevant assessment year, leading to a ruling in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue.

4. The issue of duty drawback was decided in favor of the Assessee based on previous legal precedent, emphasizing that income accrues only when accompanied by a corresponding liability, thus ruling against the Revenue.

5. Customs duty paid on a specific date was allowed to be capitalized with retrospective effect for depreciation calculation, with the Court favoring the Assessee against the Revenue based on established legal principles.

6. The interpretation of Section 14A of the Act regarding the onus of proof was settled in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing that the Revenue holds the burden of proof, not the Assessee.

7. Disallowance of interest under Section 14A of the Act was ruled in favor of the Assessee, with the Court finding in line with previous legal decisions and factual findings by the ITAT.

8. The addition of excessive consumption of raw material and inputs was dismissed, ruling against the Revenue based on detailed explanations provided in previous judgments and the Court's decision in the present case.

9. The inclusion of customs duty in closing stock under Sections 43B and 145A of the Act was decided in favor of the Assessee, with the Court emphasizing the need to prevent double deductions and ensure proper accounting treatment in subsequent years.

Overall, the judgment addressed various complex issues related to taxation and compliance with the Income Tax Act, providing detailed legal analysis and rulings on each matter raised in the appeal.

← Previous Next →