9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses on gift articles. 2. Disallowance of club membership expenses. 3. Depreciation on vacant flats and guest houses. 4. Depreciation on leased out assets. 5. Interest on loan for leased assets. 6. Computation of deduction under Section 80-I. Detailed Analysis: Ground No. 1: Disallowance of Expenses on Gift Articles The issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 7,31,209 made by the AO for gift articles. The CIT(A) directed the AO to regulate the expenses under Rule 6B of the IT Rules, 1962. This issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal, Pune for the assessment year 1993-94. The Tribunal observed that the expenditure on gift items without the company logo was allowed in full, referencing the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Allana Sons (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal followed this precedent and rejected the ground. Ground No. 2: Disallowance of Club Membership Expenses The AO disallowed Rs. 3,500 for club membership expenses, not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance. The Tribunal noted that this issue was previously decided against the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92, referencing the case of OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT. Following the precedent, the Tribunal allowed this ground. Ground No. 3: Depreciation on Vacant Flats and Guest Houses The AO disallowed depreciation of Rs. 4,50,062 on flats, some of which were vacant and some used for guest-house purposes. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation. The Tribunal referenced a similar issue decided in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 and followed that precedent, rejecting this ground. Ground Nos. 4 and 5: Depreciation on Leased Out Assets and Interest on Loan for Leased Assets The AO disallowed depreciation of Rs. 3,89,54,081 on leased out assets and interest of Rs. 2,62,85,442 on loans for purchasing leased assets, considering the leasing transaction as a tax avoidance device. The CIT(A) allowed these claims. The Tribunal referenced its decision against the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 and followed that precedent, allowing these grounds. Ground No. 6: Computation of Deduction Under Section 80-I The AO reduced the assessee's claim under Section 80-I by Rs. 1,52,55,539, considering Urse unit-II as an extension of the old unit and reallocating expenses. The CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 89,06,203. The Tribunal needed to adjudicate three issues: - Allocation of expenses between the old and new units. - Whether Urse unit-II was a new industrial undertaking under Section 80-IA. - Treatment of depreciation for Urse unit-II. The Tribunal remitted the issue of expense allocation back to the CIT(A) for re-examination. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that Urse unit-II was a new industrial undertaking, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and other precedents. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the treatment of depreciation, directing the AO to treat the initial year for deduction under Section 80-IA as the year in which the new unit began manufacturing articles. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Department for the assessment year 1994-95 was partly allowed. The Tribunal followed precedents and legal principles to decide on each ground, providing detailed reasoning for its decisions.
|
