9911796707
|
Home
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in the judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Traveling Expenses Disallowance under Rule 6D The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 40,00,000/- on domestic traveling expenses under Rule 6D(ii), beyond the Rs. 23,36,220/- disallowed by the assessee itself, relying on the Karnataka High Court decision in Stumpp Schuelle & Somappa Ltd.. The assessee contended that the cited case was distinguishable and relied on the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT vs. Vidyut Metallics Ltd., which held that Rule 6D limits deduction for daily allowance and hotel stay but does not extend to other incidental expenses wholly and exclusively for business. The Special Bench ITAT decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. was also cited, holding that Rule 6D does not cover telephone bills and secretarial assistance. The CIT(A) deleted the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 16,63,780/- for lack of basis and on judicial precedents supporting the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, distinguishing the facts from the Karnataka High Court case and confirming that Rule 6D limits only certain components of traveling expenses. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Aorow India Ltd. as the issue there pertained to computation on per trip basis, which was not relevant here. Addition to Closing Stock on Account of Modvat Credit The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,16,35,000/- to closing stock to include excise duty, contending that cost includes all indirect taxes. The assessee followed the net method, excluding excise duty from purchases and closing stock. CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on Calcutta High Court decision in Berger Paints India Ltd. and Supreme Court decision in Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd., which held that valuation method (net or gross) does not affect ultimate profits, and excise duty need not be added to closing stock. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition. Expenditure on Computer Software and Support Charges The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,00,000/- treating software charges and support fees as capital expenditure. The assessee argued that software support fees were akin to maintenance charges and that software became obsolete due to technological advances, thus not capital in nature. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's submissions and deleted the disallowance. The Revenue sought remand relying on Special Bench decision in Amway India Ltd., but the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing no justification for treating such expenses as capital or making adhoc disallowance. Advertisement Films, Slides, and TV Time Slot Expenses The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 85,47,046/- incurred on production of advertisement films, slides, and video cassettes, treating them as capital expenditure due to their enduring value. The assessee contended these were routine yearly advertisement campaigns with frequent changes, thus revenue expenditure. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, relying on Bombay High Court decision in Patel International Films Ltd. The Tribunal, however, allowed the assessee's appeal relying on its own earlier decision for AY 1996-97, where the expenditure was held to be revenue in nature. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Regarding Rs. 25,00,000/- spent on buying TV time slots, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as capital expenditure, but CIT(A) allowed it as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s order, holding the expenditure purely revenue in nature. Disallowance under Rule 6B of Advertisement and Publicity Expenses The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 1,43,498/- under Rule 6B relating to gift articles costing more than Rs. 200/- each. The assessee argued that most gifts did not bear company's logo and thus Rule 6B did not apply. CIT(A) held that presentation items costing more than Rs. 200/- are entertainment expenditure under section 37(2)(b), relying on Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in CIT vs. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. The CIT(A) restricted the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,62,598/-, inclusive of the Rule 6B disallowance, deleting the separate addition of Rs. 1,43,498/-. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, confirming CIT(A)'s findings. Deduction under Section 80M on Dividend Income The Assessing Officer reduced the dividend income by an adhoc amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of estimated administrative and management expenses for computing deduction under section 80M. The assessee contended no such expenses were incurred and no estimate should be allowed. CIT(A) found no interest charge on shares or units and disallowed interest deduction but allowed a reasonable estimate of 2% administrative expenses, considering activities involved in earning dividend income. The Tribunal held the disallowance was adhoc and not based on identifiable expenses directly relatable to dividend income, citing Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. General Insurance Corporation of India. The Tribunal directed full deduction under section 80M to the assessee and dismissed Revenue's appeal, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. Loss on Sale of UTI Units: Speculative Loss or Short-Term Capital Loss The Assessing Officer treated loss of Rs. 14,62,500/- on sale of UTI units as speculative loss under Explanation to section 73, contending units are shares. The assessee argued units are not shares, relying on section 32(3) of UTI Act and judicial precedents. CIT(A) held that the deeming provisions apply only for dividend income and do not make units shares for all purposes. The loss was held to be short-term capital loss, not speculative loss. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT, confirming units are not shares and Explanation to section 73 does not apply. The loss was allowed as business loss. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal. Depreciation on Technical Know-How Fees with Deduction under Section 35AB The assessee claimed depreciation on technical know-how fees, which was disallowed as deduction under section 35AB was allowed. The Tribunal dismissed the claim relying on Supreme Court decisions holding that where section 35AB deduction is claimed, depreciation under section 32 is not allowable. Expenditure on Transit Houses and Section 37(4) The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 2,54,844/- on account of expenses relating to transit houses maintained by the assessee, treating them as maintenance of guest houses under section 37(4). The assessee contended only Rs. 11,012/- was disallowable and expenses on canteen supply materials should not be disallowed. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., holding expenditure on food and beverages for inhabitants of guest houses is not maintenance of guest house and can be allowed under section 37(2) or (2A), but expenses on maintenance staff are disallowable under section 37(4). The issue was remanded to Assessing Officer to examine food and beverage expenses afresh. The disallowance was partly upheld and partly deleted. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenditure in Sales Conference, Business Meeting, Canteen, Advertisement, and Club Membership The Assessing Officer made adhoc disallowances aggregating to Rs. 15,87,000/- on grounds of entertainment expenditure. The assessee contended that business meeting and conference expenses were for business purposes without entertainment element, that canteen expenses disallowance was excessive, and that subscription to Cricket Club of India was corporate membership and revenue expenditure. CIT(A) reduced disallowance on sales conference and business meeting expenses to Rs. 9,00,000/- based on specific items and past records, disallowed Rs. 2,20,000/- out of canteen expenses as entertainment, restricted advertisement and publicity disallowance to Rs. 1,62,598/-, deleted overlapping disallowance of Rs. 1,43,498/-, but confirmed disallowance of Rs. 87,000/- on cricket club membership. The Tribunal deleted disallowance on business meeting and conference expenses relying on judicial precedents holding such expenses are business expenses without entertainment element. It allowed a reasonable adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- on canteen expenses due to incomplete records. It deleted disallowance of Rs. 1,62,598/- on advertisement expenses due to erroneous assumption by CIT(A) that entire amount was claimed. It held cricket club subscription as revenue expenditure following Bombay and Gujarat High Court decisions. Overall, the assessee's grounds were partly allowed. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 20,00,000/- adhoc out of Rs. 64,38,993/- foreign travel expenses, alleging some visits were for parent company's benefit or for starting new business, relying on judicial precedents. The assessee submitted detailed itinerary and RBI approvals showing visits were for its own business. CIT(A) restricted disallowance to 20% of total foreign travel expenses considering some inadmissible expenses and lack of full details. The Tribunal examined the itinerary and found no visit was for starting new product manufacture or for parent company's benefit. It noted similar disallowances were deleted in earlier years. The Tribunal held the disallowance was based on incorrect assumptions and directed deletion of the disallowance. Ground of Revenue was dismissed. Interest Income and Deduction under Section 80HHC The issue was whether interest income, including interest on overdue accounts, should be excluded from profits for deduction under section 80HHC. The Revenue relied on Bombay High Court decisions holding that receipts with no nexus to exports must be excluded. The assessee argued interest on overdue payments related to export sales and should be included. The Tribunal held that interest income without nexus to exports cannot be included in profits for section 80HHC. However, interest on overdue amounts relating to export sales may be included. The matter was remanded to Assessing Officer for verification. Other interest income exclusions were upheld. Grounds partly allowed. Professional Charges under Urban Land Ceiling Act The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,50,000/- paid as professional fees for compliance under Urban Land Ceiling Act, treating it as capital expenditure increasing land value. The assessee contended it was statutory compliance expense to preserve property and not capital in nature. CIT(A) upheld AO's view. The Tribunal relied on House of Lords decision in Morgan v. Tate & Lyle Ltd. and Supreme Court decisions holding expenditure incurred to preserve assets or resist restrictions is allowable revenue expenditure. It held the expenditure did not increase land value but protected property from acquisition. The Tribunal allowed the expenditure as deduction. Expenditure on Vision 2000 Programme The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 10,00,000/- on Vision 2000 corporate programme as capital expenditure related to corporate image building. The assessee contended it was employee training and advertisement expenditure, citing Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd.. CIT(A) reduced disallowance to Rs. 5,00,000/- treating part as capital expenditure. The Tribunal examined the Vision 2000 brochure and held the expenditure was employee training and motivation, thus revenue expenditure. The Tribunal allowed the ground in favor of the assessee. Payments Treated as Donations The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 4,99,000/- debited to corporate development account, including payments to Embassy of Switzerland, Neurological Society of India, and Vasco Environment. The assessee contended payments were business related or advertisement expenses. CIT(A) allowed Rs. 50,000/- paid to Association of Basic Manufacturers of Pesticides as advertising expenditure but disallowed payments to Embassy of Switzerland and others as donations. The Tribunal upheld disallowance of Rs. 1,29,000/- to Embassy but allowed payments to Neurological Society and Vasco Environment as connected to business and social responsibility. Ground partly allowed. Set off of Short-Term Capital Loss against Business Income The assessee claimed set off of short-term capital loss of Rs. 6,00,670/- on sale of CHN analyzers against business income. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed, holding analyzers were not business assets and loss was capital loss not allowable against business income. The Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s order, holding short-term capital loss cannot be set off against business income unless provisions allow. Ground dismissed. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 read with section 37(3) of the Income Tax Act, limits expenditure incurred on traveling to the extent of stay in hotel confining it to daily allowance referred to in Rule 6D and does not extend to any other expenditure incurred provided expenditure wholly and exclusively made out for the purpose of business." "Whether the net method of valuation of inventory or gross method of valuation of inventory is followed by the assessee, that will not have any impact on the ultimate profits of the assessee and therefore addition to the value of closing stock by including excise duty was not proper." "Expenditure on computer software support charges, which are for maintenance and not for upgradation or enhancement, are revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure." "Advertisement films, slides and video cassettes produced as routine yearly advertisement campaigns, which are changed frequently, cannot be treated as capital expenditure." "Units of UTI are not shares for all purposes under the Income Tax Act and loss on sale of units cannot be treated as speculative loss under Explanation to section 73." "Where deduction under section 35AB is claimed on technical know-how fees, depreciation under section 32 is not allowable." "Expenditure incurred for maintenance of guest houses is disallowable under section 37(4), but expenditure on food and beverages for inhabitants may be allowed under section 37(2) or (2A)." "Business meeting and conference expenses related to marketing and sales policies are allowable as revenue expenditure and not disallowable as entertainment expenditure." "Adhoc disallowance of expenses without identification of inadmissible items is not justified." "Foreign travel expenses disallowance must be based on specific inadmissible expenditure and not on assumptions; adhoc disallowance beyond reasonable limits is not sustainable." "Interest income without nexus to export sales must be excluded for deduction under section 80HHC; interest on overdue export sales may be included." "Professional charges incurred for statutory compliance to protect property from acquisition are allowable revenue expenditure." "Expenditure on employee training and corporate strategy brochures is revenue expenditure notwithstanding some element of corporate image building." "Payments to associations connected with business activities and social responsibility may be allowed as business expenditure; payments to foreign embassies without nexus to business are donations." "Short-term capital loss on assets not held as stock-in-trade cannot be set off against business income." Final determinations included partial allowance and dismissal of appeals by both Revenue and Assessee, with directions for reassessment or verification on certain points such as interest income nexus and food expenses at transit houses.
|
