9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Writing off stock valued at Rs. 13,44,777 due to change in the method of account and valuation. 2. Allowing deduction of legal expenses as revenue expenditure. 3. Excluding car insurance amount while working out disallowance u/s 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961. 4. Allowing depreciation for 18 months. 5. Reducing unabsorbed depreciation for computing deduction u/s 80HHD. Summary: Issue 1: Writing off stock valued at Rs. 13,44,777 due to change in the method of account and valuation The assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of ITC Ltd., changed its method of accounting for consumables like crockery and linen, writing them off upon issuance from stores. The AO added back Rs. 13,34,777 to the income, but the CIT(A) allowed the change, deeming it bona fide and consistent with industry practices. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the method was rational and regularly employed, and not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. Issue 2: Allowing deduction of legal expenses as revenue expenditure The assessee incurred legal expenses of Rs. 1,16,572 defending its right to sell pork and wine in its hotel. The AO treated these as capital expenditure, but the CIT(A) allowed them as revenue expenditure, following the Supreme Court's decision in Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenses were for protecting the right to carry on business. Issue 3: Excluding car insurance amount while working out disallowance u/s 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961 The AO included car insurance expenses in the disallowance u/s 37(3A), but the CIT(A) excluded them, considering them statutory expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, supported by various High Court rulings, including CIT vs. A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. Issue 4: Allowing depreciation for 18 months The AO restricted depreciation to 12 months despite allowing the assessee to extend its accounting period to 18 months. The CIT(A) allowed depreciation for the full 18 months, citing the proviso to Rule 5(i) of the IT Rules, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Allahabad High Court's ruling in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. ITO. Issue 5: Reducing unabsorbed depreciation for computing deduction u/s 80HHD The AO reduced the deduction u/s 80HHD by considering unabsorbed depreciation, but the CIT(A) upheld the assessee's computation. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision, distinguishing the case from Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. vs. CIT and emphasizing that the formula in s. 80HHD(3) should be applied without reducing unabsorbed depreciation. The Tribunal also referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. and other relevant cases. Conclusion: All three appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues.
|
