9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of audited accounts despite records being destroyed by fire. 2. Disallowance under Rule 6D. 3. Claim of weighted deduction for various expenses. 4. Deduction for expenses on foreign technicians. 5. Deduction for repair expenses. 6. Deduction for excise duty liability. 7. Weighted deduction on inland tour expenses and entertainment expenses. 8. Deduction of guarantee commission and commitment charges. 9. Deduction of excise duty liability on carded gilled silver. 10. Depreciation on roads and culverts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Acceptance of Audited Accounts Despite Records Being Destroyed by Fire: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) refused to accept the audited accounts and confirmed some additions despite the destruction of records by fire. The Tribunal noted that the fire incident was supported by a First Information Report. It was concluded that reliance on audited accounts and auditor's reports, as seen in the Delhi High Court decision in Addl. CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., was justified. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to consider the merits of the case based on the available material. 2. Disallowance Under Rule 6D: The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 6D, arguing it should be restricted to Rs. 17,614 as initially offered. The Tribunal found the claim reasonable, noting the books were destroyed by fire and accepted the revised disallowance of Rs. 17,614. 3. Claim of Weighted Deduction for Various Expenses: The assessee claimed weighted deductions for expenses like commission, clearing charges, interest, and business promotion. The Tribunal, referencing decisions in CIT vs. GEC of India Ltd., CIT vs. Kerala Nut Food Co., and others, upheld the claim for business promotion expenses incurred on foreign buyers but denied the claims for clearing charges, interest, and commission payments to Indian agents. 4. Deduction for Expenses on Foreign Technicians: The Tribunal allowed the deduction for expenses on foreign technicians, noting that the expenses were debited to administration expenses and the auditor's report did not contain adverse remarks. The decision was supported by the Delhi High Court ruling in Addl. CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. 5. Deduction for Repair Expenses: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 8,286 for repair expenses, referencing the Delhi High Court decision in Jay Engineering Works. 6. Deduction for Excise Duty Liability: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 12,02,000 for excise duty liability, noting that the liability crystallized when the demand was raised. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court ruling in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. 7. Weighted Deduction on Inland Tour Expenses and Entertainment Expenses: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow weighted deductions for inland tour expenses and entertainment expenses of the Export Manager, referencing the Special Bench decision in J. Hemchand & Co. and the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in CIT vs. Vippy Solvex Products Pvt. Ltd. 8. Deduction of Guarantee Commission and Commitment Charges: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction of guarantee commission and commitment charges, noting these were related to machinery imported on a deferred payment scheme and were incurred after the machinery was set up, thus qualifying as revenue expenses under Explanation 8 to Section 43. 9. Deduction of Excise Duty Liability on Carded Gilled Silver: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction of Rs. 37,21,631 for excise duty liability on carded gilled silver, referencing the retrospective amendment to the Excise and Salt Act and the Supreme Court decision in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 10. Depreciation on Roads and Culverts: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on roads and culverts, referencing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which held that roads within factory premises are part of the building. Conclusion: The appeal by the assessee was allowed in part, while the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
