9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 316 - AT - Income TaxImpact of pay revision of executives - assessee submitted that the assessee company had debited an amount in its P L account on account of pay revision of executives - It is the submissions that such provision was made on account of increase in the salaries and other benefits in respect of executives of the company - HELD THAT - In the present case the AO and CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of ITAT in assessee s own case wherein the issue in hand has been decided against the assessee. The assessment order in the present case was passed on 17.03.2019 the appellate order by Ld. CIT(A) have been completed on 05.12.2019. The order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. 2020 (2) TMI 372 - DELHI HIGH COURT , accordingly, both the revenue authorities at the time of deciding the issue were not having the availability of principle of law decided by Hon ble Delhi High Court on the identical issue subsequently, so, their decision cannot be held as erroneous. However, since now the position of on the issue is squarely covered by the order of Hon ble Delhi High Court, we cannot subscribe to the decisions of the revenue authorities, thus, respectful following the judgment of Hon ble Delhi Court having similar facts, are of the considered view that the provision of Rs. 17.65 crore made by the assessee company was required to effect the pay revision from Jan 17 to March 17 for executives salaries and fringe benefits as the tenure of executive s salary and fringe benefits are determined and finalized by the department of public sector enterprises has come to in an end on 31.12.2016. Although the intimation regarding such pay revision was communicated by the Coal India Limited vide communication letter no. CIL/C-3A/31075/200 dated 18.04.2017 but the liability was already under negotiation and has been ascertained - Merely because the communication w.r.t. implementation of pay revision has took time, the same could not be construed as there was no basis for making provision. Accordingly, the provision made by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Resultantly, ground of the assessee is allowed. Non grant of TDS credit due to income mismatch - assessee submitted that since the issue of TDS credit mismatch has already delt with by the AO while allowing the TDS credit to the assessee vide order u/s 154 dtd. 05.04.2022, to support this contention copy of the same was furnished before us - HELD THAT - On perusal of the order u/s 154, it is apparent that the issue pertaining to TDS credit which has been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) and was also accepted by the assessing officer, therefore, there was no grievance remained as both the parties reached on a consensus. AR further submitted that once the issue regarding TDS credit has already accepted by the AO, the ground raised in this respect becomes infructuous and, therefore, no further adjudication is required. CIT DR also have fairly agreed to the contention of the Ld. AR, thus, the ground of the revenue is dismissed. Amortization of deferred grant - HELD THAT - Admittedly, Ld. AO has rejected the explanations of the assessee without assigning any specific finding. Since the assessee has requested to restore the issue back to the file of AO for reverification of facts and to re-adjudicate on merits, which is not objected by the LD. CIT DR. We, therefore, under such facts and circumstances in all fairness following the principle of natural justice are of the view that since there are other issues which are restored back for re-adjudication to the files of AO, the issue regarding amortization of deferred grant wherein the claim of he assessee was denied only on the basis of assumption that assessee have not submitted plausible explanations without pursuing with the assessee with further enquiries, should also be restored back to the files of AO to verify the fact and re-adjudicate the same. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard should be allowed to the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Short credit of interest income. 2. Disallowance of Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses. 3. Non-adjudication of additional ground by CIT(A). 4. Disallowance of Liquidated Damages. 5. Disallowance of Provision for Mine Closure Expenditure. 6. Disallowance of Overburden Removal Adjustment. 7. Disallowance of Depreciation on Hospital Building. 8. Disallowance of Power and Fuel Expenditure. 9. Disallowance of Coal Transportation Expenditure. 10. Disallowance of Depreciation on Railway Siding. 11. Disallowance of Pay Revision of Executives. 12. Disallowance of Employee Benefit Expenses. 13. Disallowance of Gratuity Funding Difference. 14. Inflating income in computation. 15. General issues and rights reserved. Summary: 1. Short Credit of Interest Income: The Tribunal noted that the issue of short credit of interest income was covered by the earlier decision of the ITAT in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 201/BIL/2012 & Ors. dated 30.10.2023). Thus, the addition of Rs. 20,70,76,674/- was decided in accordance with the previous ruling. 2. Disallowance of Land Compensation and Rehabilitation Expenses: The Tribunal found that the disallowance of Rs. 308,24,00,000/- was also covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal directed that the amortization of expenses in the form of depreciation should be allowed as per the jurisdictional bench's previous ruling. 3. Non-adjudication of Additional Ground by CIT(A): The Tribunal acknowledged that the additional ground taken up before the CIT(A) on 28.11.2019 was not adjudicated. This issue was not pressed by the assessee, and thus, it was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Disallowance of Liquidated Damages: The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of Rs. 1,24,81,924/- relating to Liquidated Damages was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal followed the previous ruling, treating it as a capital receipt. 5. Disallowance of Provision for Mine Closure Expenditure: The Tribunal found that the disallowance of Rs. 115,81,27,600/- was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction of mine closure expenses in the year of its actual payment if the initial ground was decided against the assessee. 6. Disallowance of Overburden Removal Adjustment: The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of Rs. 1198,65,00,000/- was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal followed the previous ruling. 7. Disallowance of Depreciation on Hospital Building: The Tribunal found that the disallowance of Rs. 54,00,000/- was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant consequential relief of 30% standard deduction from "Income from House Property" if the initial ground was decided against the assessee. 8. Disallowance of Power and Fuel Expenditure: The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of 25% of the total expenditure incurred on power and fuel was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal followed the previous ruling. 9. Disallowance of Coal Transportation Expenditure: The Tribunal found that the disallowance of 25% of the total expenditure incurred on coal transportation through Ex-servicemen Companies was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal followed the previous ruling. 10. Disallowance of Depreciation on Railway Siding: The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of Rs. 119,00,000/- was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant consequential relief of 30% standard deduction from "Income from House Property" if the initial ground was decided against the assessee. 11. Disallowance of Pay Revision of Executives: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 17.65 crore for pay revision of executives, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT. The Tribunal held that the provision was an ascertained liability. 12. Disallowance of Employee Benefit Expenses: The Tribunal found that the disallowance of Rs. 66,00,000/- was covered by the earlier ITAT decision. The Tribunal followed the previous ruling. 13. Disallowance of Gratuity Funding Difference: The Tribunal noted that the issue was not pressed by the assessee and thus dismissed it as withdrawn. 14. Inflating Income in Computation: The Tribunal noted that the issue was not pressed by the assessee and thus dismissed it as withdrawn. 15. General Issues and Rights Reserved: The Tribunal acknowledged the general and academic nature of certain grounds and did not adjudicate them separately. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, following the observations and decisions in the earlier ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. Specific grounds covered by previous rulings were disposed of accordingly, and issues requiring further verification were restored to the AO.
|
