9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest paid to Customs Department, Excise Department, and Rajasthan Electricity Board. 2. Reduction of subsidy from the WDV of fixed assets. 3. Deduction under Section 80G of the IT Act. 4. Allowability of deduction under Section 80HH of the IT Act. 5. Revaluation of investment held as capital assets. 6. Treatment of payment to Rajasthan State Electricity Board for laying additional lines and shifting KV lines. 7. Addition for traffic violations. 8. Addition for amounts given to employees at the time of marriage. 9. Disallowance under Section 40A(12) of the IT Act. 10. Depreciation on flat in Bombay without conveyance deed. 11. Allowance of interest on borrowed funds advanced to subsidiary companies. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Interest Paid to Customs Department, Excise Department, and Rajasthan Electricity Board: The assessee's ground regarding disallowance of interest paid to these departments was not pressed by the learned counsel, and hence, this ground was rejected. 2. Reduction of Subsidy from the WDV of Fixed Assets: The AO disallowed depreciation by reducing the cost of the diesel generating set by the subsidy received from the J&K Government. The CIT(A) confirmed this action, stating that the subsidy was directly related to the asset. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Special Bench decision in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT. 3. Deduction under Section 80G of the IT Act: The assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 80G for a donation to Vishwa Mangal Trust was disallowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Special Bench decision and the Calcutta High Court ruling that the trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 80G. 4. Allowability of Deduction under Section 80HH of the IT Act: The AO reduced the deduction under Section 80HH by notionally carrying forward unabsorbed investment allowance. The CIT(A) confirmed this, but the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction without such notional carry forward, relying on the Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions which stated that past losses set off against other income should not affect the relief under Section 80HH. 5. Revaluation of Investment Held as Capital Assets: This ground was not pressed by the learned counsel and was thus rejected. 6. Treatment of Payment to Rajasthan State Electricity Board for Laying Additional Lines and Shifting KV Lines: The AO treated these payments as capital expenditure, but the CIT(A) allowed them as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing various High Court and Supreme Court rulings that such payments, where the property does not vest with the assessee, are revenue in nature. 7. Addition for Traffic Violations: The CIT(A) deleted the addition for traffic violations, but the Tribunal restored the AO's addition, following the precedent set by the Tribunal's Delhi Benches. 8. Addition for Amounts Given to Employees at the Time of Marriage: The CIT(A) allowed this expenditure as normal business expenditure, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Tribunal's previous rulings and Supreme Court judgments that such welfare activities are allowable business expenses. 9. Disallowance under Section 40A(12) of the IT Act: The AO disallowed an amount exceeding Rs. 10,000 paid as legal charges. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for reconsideration in light of the Tribunal's previous decisions, emphasizing the need to verify whether the total expenditure related to one or more assessment years. 10. Depreciation on Flat in Bombay without Conveyance Deed: The AO disallowed depreciation due to the absence of a registered conveyance deed. The CIT(A) allowed it, citing the transfer of shares and possession. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Podar Cement (P) Ltd., which held that registration is not necessary for ownership under Section 22. 11. Allowance of Interest on Borrowed Funds Advanced to Subsidiary Companies: The AO disallowed Rs. 1 lakh of interest, claiming the funds were not used for the assessee's business. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, stating the loans were for strengthening the subsidiaries' financial positions, which is linked to the assessee's business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and no clear nexus with borrowed funds was established by the AO. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part, with specific directions for re-examination and reconsideration on some issues by the AO, while other decisions were upheld based on precedents and legal principles.
|
