1990 (12) TMI 153 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Deletion of interest receivable from M/s Poddar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
- Disallowance of interest payment based on overall method
- Deletion of expenditure incurred for road repairs
- Disallowance of investment allowance on dumpers
- Entitlement to investment allowance at Ratlam factory

Analysis:

1. Interest Receivable Deletion: The Tribunal noted that interest could not be charged on an amount due from M/s Poddar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. since the Award had not become a rule of the Court. The deletion of interest for various assessment years was upheld based on this reasoning, as the Award was considered non-existent. The Department's objection on this ground was dismissed.

2. Interest Payment Disallowance: The Department objected to the direction given by the CIT(A) to the ITO regarding the disallowance of interest payments. The Tribunal found no issue with the CIT(A)'s order, as it merely directed the ITO to follow the overall method laid down by the Tribunal in a previous case. The Department's objection was dismissed, subject to the ITO ensuring compliance with the Tribunal's method.

3. Expenditure on Road Repairs: The Department raised concerns about the deletion of expenditure incurred for road repairs, arguing that the repairs were not the responsibility of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the expenditure, being of revenue nature and necessary for the efficient operation of the assessee's business, could not be disallowed solely based on ownership of the roads. The Department's objection was rejected.

4. Investment Allowance on Dumpers: The Department objected to the allowance of investment allowance on dumpers, claiming they were transport vehicles not eligible for the incentive. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on past allowances and lack of reversal of the decision, dismissing the Department's objection.

5. Investment Allowance at Ratlam Factory: The Department contested the allowance of investment allowance at the Ratlam factory, citing potential loss after depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the investment allowance should be granted to the assessee as a whole, not specific units. Since the assessee had positive income, the claim was justified, and the Department's objection was rejected.

In conclusion, all the Department's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal after thorough analysis and consideration of each issue raised.