9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 750 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of expenditure incurred on feasibility study - HELD THAT - Jurisdictional precedents in assessee s own case and in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by the Revenue for AYs 1986-87 to 2004-05 on the similar issue of incurrence of expenditure for feasibility study for project consultancy, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction as Revenue expenditure. Disallowance of expenses on account of education cess - HELD THAT - M/S ITC LIMITED VERSUS ACIT AND DCIT, CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S ITC LIMITED 2018 (11) TMI 1611 - ITAT KOLKATA we direct the learned AO to grant deduction on account of education cess. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - We direct the AO to disallow only to 1% of total exempt income under section 14A Disallowance of commission paid to selling agents for effecting sale to Government parties - HELD THAT - In the instant case, we find that the learned CIT(A) had categorically observed that the commission agents had indeed rendered liaison services to the assessee in connection with effecting sales to various Government authorities. It is also not in dispute that these commission agents had acted on behalf of the assessee to liaison with the Government parties and they are appointed as agents only by the assessee and not by the Government parties. Hence, the Government parties in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act had replied, wherever applicable, that they had dealt with the assessee directly and not through the agent. We also find that the majority of the commission agents had indeed furnished the confirmations duly specifying the requisite details before the learned AO which are already on record but we find that there is no factual finding recorded by the lower authorities with regard to veracity of the said confirmations. Hence, as vehemently argued by the learned DR, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Claim of depreciation on Gopalpur project assets - HELD THAT - DR submitted that this issue is not covered by the orders passed by this Tribunal for earlier years as the same is incurred for ISP project at Bareili. We find that the basic facts pertaining to this issue are not available for our records from the orders of the lower authorities. At the same time, if this is consequential issue arising from AY 1997-98 onwards in the form of grant of depreciation, the same should not be denied to the assessee. Hence, we deem it fit appropriate, to admit the additional ground raised by the assessee and remand the entire additional ground to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. All the arguments of both the parties with regard to the said issue are left upon and no opinion is rendered herein on the same. Accordingly, the additional ground No. 6 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on feasibility study. 2. Disallowance of expenses on account of education cess. 3. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 4. Disallowance of commission paid to selling agents for effecting sales to Government parties. 5. Contribution to institutions at Jamshedpur and Collieries. 6. Claim of depreciation on Gopalpur project assets. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Expenditure Incurred on Feasibility Study: The assessee claimed ?5,04,60,373/- as revenue expenditure for feasibility studies related to its manufacturing activities. The AO treated it as capital expenditure, granting 25% depreciation. The CIT(A) upheld this, noting the expenses were for a new project not yet started. However, the Tribunal found the studies were for identifying minerals for existing business development, not initiating new business. The Tribunal cited past decisions favoring the assessee, including a High Court ruling for AY 1985-86, and allowed the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 2. Disallowance of Expenses on Account of Education Cess: The Tribunal found this issue covered by the Rajasthan High Court decision in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. vs. JCIT, which held that education cess is not disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the deduction on account of education cess. 3. Disallowance Under Section 14A of the Act: The assessee earned ?111,39,52,672/- in dividends, claiming no expenditure for earning this exempt income. The AO applied Rule 8D(2), disallowing ?40.50 crores. The CIT(A) directed the AO to re-compute disallowance using a formula from AY 2007-08. The Tribunal noted Supreme Court rulings that Rule 8D(2) applies from AY 2008-09 and found the assessee had sufficient own funds, negating interest disallowance. It directed disallowance of only 1% of the exempt income for administrative expenses. 4. Disallowance of Commission Paid to Selling Agents: The AO disallowed ?2,33,28,385/- in commissions, questioning the services rendered by agents. The CIT(A) directed the assessee to produce confirmations from agents. The Tribunal found the assessee provided confirmations and invoices detailing services rendered, subject to service tax and TDS. The Tribunal noted similar commissions were allowed in subsequent years and remanded the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication. 5. Contribution to Institutions at Jamshedpur and Collieries: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing consistent Tribunal decisions and a High Court ruling for AY 1985-86, which found the expenses were for business expediency to motivate the workforce. 6. Claim of Depreciation on Gopalpur Project Assets: The assessee raised an additional ground for depreciation on Gopalpur project assets, citing a Tribunal decision for AY 1997-98 accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal admitted the ground, remanding it to the AO for de novo adjudication, noting the issue arises from AY 1997-98 onwards. Conclusion: - Assessee’s appeals for AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07 were partly allowed for statistical purposes. - Revenue’s appeal for AY 2005-06 was dismissed.
|
