9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of carried forward losses of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance reserve under section 115J(2). 2. Claim of depreciation on foreign exchange rate difference. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Carried Forward Losses of Unabsorbed Depreciation and Investment Allowance Reserve under Section 115J(2): The assessee claimed that deductions for depreciation and investment allowance should be allowed to reduce the income to the level computed under section 115J. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim, stating that section 115J(2) explicitly does not affect the determination of amounts to be carried forward. The CIT(A) upheld this view. The assessee cited favorable decisions from Gauhati High Court in Lallacherra Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. and Kerala High Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., arguing that the unabsorbed amounts should be carried forward. The revenue cited contrary decisions from Karnataka High Court in Widia (India) Ltd. and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Suryalatha Spg. Mills Ltd. The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court decisions but emphasized that beneficial interpretations for the assessee should be followed, citing Supreme Court rulings in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. and CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. Thus, the Tribunal directed to allow the claim of the assessee, reversing the CIT(A) order. However, a dissenting opinion by another member argued that section 115J(2) clearly states that the computation of unabsorbed reliefs remains unaffected by section 115J(1), supporting the decisions of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts. This member upheld the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) decisions. The matter was referred to a Third Member who, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, agreed with the dissenting member, rejecting the assessee's claim. 2. Claim of Depreciation on Foreign Exchange Rate Difference: The assessee claimed depreciation on exchange differences for loans taken to acquire plant and machinery, calculated at the year-end exchange rate. The Assessing Officer disallowed this, viewing the liability as notional and contingent, not crystallized. The CIT(A) upheld this view based on a previous year's order. The assessee argued that the liability must be valued at the year-end exchange rate, citing decisions from Bombay High Court in Padamjee Pulp & Paper Mills and Karnataka High Court in CIT v. H.M.T. Ltd. The Tribunal, agreeing with the assessee, referenced the Bombay High Court decision in Padamjee Pulp & Paper Mills, which held that additional liability due to exchange rate fluctuations should be added to the actual cost for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A) order, allowing the depreciation claim. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A) decision on the foreign exchange rate difference issue, allowing the depreciation claim. However, following the Third Member's opinion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer's decision on the carried forward losses of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance reserve under section 115J(2), rejecting the assessee's claim.
|
