9911796707
|
Home
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Addition of notional interest on advances given to sister concern. 2. Disallowance of service charges paid for effecting sales and procurement of raw materials. 3. Disallowance of part of expenses. 4. Forcing deduction of depreciation not claimed by the assessee. 5. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-HHC before allowing deduction u/s 32AB. 6. Allowability of deduction u/s 80HH and 80-I before setting off brought forward depreciation. 7. Decision on 50% reduction in job work charges paid towards repairs of plant & machinery. 8. Verification of claim of Rs. 27,04,031. 9. Addition to book profit for alleged excess provision for depreciation. 10. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-HHC. 11. Levy of interest u/s 234-B and 234-C. 12. Levy of additional tax on notional income assessed u/s 115-J. Ground No. (i): The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,170, being the amount of notional interest on advances given to sister concern. The Tribunal found that the advances were made for business purposes and the assessee had sufficient interest-free credits. Thus, the addition of Rs. 89,170 was deleted. Ground No. (ii): The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,75,000, being service charges paid to M/s Souvenirs Chemicals Private Limited. The Tribunal found that the payment was reasonable given the increase in business and the services rendered. The disallowance of Rs. 6,75,000 was deleted. Ground No. (iii): The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 out of expenses. The Tribunal noted the practical difficulty in obtaining vouchers for all expenses and found the lump sum disallowance without exact amounts unjustified. The disallowance of Rs. 15,000 was deleted. Ground No. (iv): The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in forcing upon the assessee the deduction of depreciation not claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be forced upon the assessee if not claimed. The Assessing Officer was directed to withdraw the depreciation allowed. Ground No. (v): The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the deduction u/s 80-HHC was allowable before allowing deduction u/s 32AB. The Tribunal upheld the view that deduction u/s 32AB falls within the computation of profits for s. 80-HHC. This ground was dismissed. Ground No. (vi): The CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction u/s 80HH and 80-I was not allowable before setting off brought forward depreciation. The Tribunal directed that unabsorbed depreciation should not be deducted from the profits for computing deductions u/s 80-HH and 80-I. Ground No. (vii): The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue relating to 50% reduction in job work charges paid towards repairs of plant & machinery. The Tribunal found no basis for treating the payment as unreasonable and deleted the addition of Rs. 79,247. Ground No. (viii): The CIT(A) erred in directing to verify the claim of Rs. 27,04,031 to allow/disallow the same. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to change the method of depreciation and claim arrears of past years. The Assessing Officer was directed not to interfere with the balance sheet regarding this claim. Ground No. (ix): The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,32,315 to the book profit, being alleged excess provision for depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's correction of the Profit & Loss Account as the provision was not in accordance with the Companies Act. Ground No. (x): The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the claim regarding allowability of deduction u/s 80-HHC. The Tribunal directed that the profits for deduction u/s 80HHC should be computed according to the provisions of ss. 28 to 44 of the IT Act. Ground No. (xi): The CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234-B and 234-C. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's stand that income u/s 115J is notional and should not be the basis for interest levy. However, interest should be charged excluding cash compensatory support. Ground No. (xii): The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the additional tax on notional income assessed u/s 115-J was improper. The Tribunal held that no additional tax can be levied on book profit u/s 115J and deleted the additional tax levied. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed.
|
