9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of writing off lease money and deferred revenue expenses. 2. Addition on account of valuation of zinc concentrate. 3. Addition on account of alleged undervaluation of tungsten closing stock. 4. Disallowance of depreciation of assets for guest house. 5. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on account of proportionate deduction claimed under section 35AB. 6. Disallowance of expenditure holding them to be capital in nature. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition on account of writing off lease money and deferred revenue expenses: The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 10,45,000 made by the AO for writing off lease money and deferred revenue expenses. The AO disallowed the claim, stating that such expenses could not be considered as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this view. The appellant argued that the practice of spreading the expenditure over the useful life of the lease is an accepted accounting practice, referencing a prior favorable decision for the year 1992-93. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, directing the AO to allow the necessary relief as per the previous order, thereby reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. 2. Addition on account of valuation of zinc concentrate: The AO added Rs. 27.08 crores to the returned income, disputing the appellant's method of valuing zinc concentrate at net realizable value based on LME prices. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the appellant failed to demonstrate actual loss in stock value. The appellant argued that the valuation method was consistent and in line with accounting principles, citing several judicial precedents. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, recognizing the valuation method as consistent and commercially accepted, and directed the AO to allow the necessary relief, thus reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. 3. Addition on account of alleged undervaluation of tungsten closing stock: The AO added Rs. 10,04,000 for undervaluation of tungsten stock, rejecting the appellant's valuation at domestic market rates instead of LME prices. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that the tungsten concentrate was of low grade and not viable for international markets, justifying the domestic valuation. The tribunal directed the AO to verify if the valuation method was consistently followed in subsequent years and to allow relief if it was, otherwise, no benefit should be granted. 4. Disallowance of depreciation of assets for guest house: The AO disallowed Rs. 23,25,001 for depreciation on guest house assets, which the CIT(A) partially upheld. The appellant referenced a prior decision for the year 1991-92, where similar disallowance was dismissed. The tribunal, following the precedent, directed the AO to allow the necessary relief, thereby reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. 5. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on account of proportionate deduction claimed under section 35AB: The AO disallowed Rs. 4,11,37,165, citing non-deduction of tax on technical know-how payments to a foreign company, which the CIT(A) upheld based on a previous year's order. The appellant referenced a favorable tribunal decision for the year 1994-95. The tribunal agreed, directing the AO to allow the necessary relief as per the previous order. 6. Disallowance of expenditure holding them to be capital in nature: The AO disallowed Rs. 70,13,000 and Rs. 20,53,000, considering them capital expenditures related to arbitration awards for interest and additional payments to contractors. The CIT(A) upheld this view but allowed depreciation on the capitalized amount. The appellant argued that the interest payment should be treated as revenue expenditure, citing several judicial precedents. The tribunal agreed regarding the interest payment, directing the AO to allow it as a revenue expenditure if it related to post-acquisition periods. However, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the additional payment, considering it a capital expenditure. Other Grounds: Grounds 7 to 14 were dismissed as they were not pressed, and Ground 15 was considered academic and not pressed. The appeal was allowed in part.
|
