2013 (10) TMI 770 - AT - Income Tax

Replacement of machines under Technological Up-gradation Fund (TUF) scheme of Ministry of Textile - Revenue or capital in nature - Held that - Machine was being used for rewinding yarn from small plastic bobbins produced on pinning ring frame and making a big size bobbin. The Autoconer is a part of a spinning machine and is working together with other machines, it helps in carrying out the process. So, it was a supporting machine used for knotting the yarn from small contents on a plastic bobbin to big cones. This machine does not have independent functioning rather it was a part of the total plant, therefore it cannot be said that the assessee replaced an independent machine by acquiring a new one rather a part of the old machine was replaced for proper functioning. Therefore, expenses incurred by the assessee were revenue in nature and not the capital in nature - it cannot be said that the assessee replaced whole of the DG set rather only a part in the form of Crank Shaft was replaced. So, it was a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure Decided in favor of Assessee. Nature of payment (expenses) made to bank for converting rupee loan into foreign currency loan - Held that - The assessee was benefited as the interest rate was reduced and those expenses were incurred by the assessee during the year under consideration and related to the business exigency. order of CIT(A) confirmed - Decided against the revenue. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act Held that - Amount was paid by the assessee on account of sea freight, to the agents of non-resident ship owners. Therefore no TDS was to be deducted under section 194C or section 195 of the Act as such the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, was not justified and the learned CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by considering the circular No. 723 dated 19/12/1995 issued by the CBDT. The present issue is also covered by the decision of this bench of the tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Minpro Industries 2012 (5) TMI 232 - ITAT, Jodhpur , wherein it has been held that reimbursement of the payment towards sea freight transport, CCI charges, steamer freight charges and REPO container charges made by the assessee to the C & F agents who have already made the payment on behalf of the assessee was covered by the provisions of section 172 of the Act and not by section 194C or section 195 and that the agent having already deducted TDS from the transportation charges and shipping bill before making these payments to the principal which have been reimbursed by the assessee, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from such payments and consequently, same could not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sustenance of addition on account of disallowance of interest treating concessional loan to SRSL Welfare Trust.
2. Disallowance of deferred tax claim against book profit under section 115JB.
3. Treatment of lease rent income as income from other sources instead of business income.
4. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets.
5. Deletion of addition as difference in interest in the case of Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. and Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Welfare Trust.
6. Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) for replacement of machinery.
7. Disallowance of expenses towards bank charges/reduction in interest rate on loan.
8. Deduction under section 80IA/80IB in respect of the profits of power plant and units of Polypropylene Multi Filament Yarn and spun yarn.
9. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on clearing and forwarding charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustenance of Addition on Account of Disallowance of Interest:
The tribunal found that the issue was already adjudicated in favor of the assessee in the preceding assessment year. The identical issue was covered by the order dated 09/12/2011, where it was held that charging a lower rate of interest was not justified. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was restricted and sustained by the CIT(A), and the tribunal saw no merit in the assessee's appeal regarding this issue.

2. Disallowance of Deferred Tax Claim:
The assessee conceded that the issue was against them due to the amendment by the Finance Act 2008 with retrospective effect from the A.Y. 2001-02. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed this ground of the assessee's appeal.

3. Treatment of Lease Rent Income:
The tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the A.Ys. 1996-97 & 1997-98, affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court. It was held that the lease rent income should be treated as business income, not income from other sources.

4. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets:
It was held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the leased assets as the owner of the assets. This decision was based on the earlier ruling in the assessee's favor, which was affirmed by the High Court.

5. Deletion of Addition as Difference in Interest:
The tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal regarding the deletion of the addition as the issue was already adjudicated in the assessee's favor in the preceding assessment year.

6. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed Under Section 37(1):
The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the expenditure for replacing parts of machinery was revenue in nature and not capital expenditure. The decision was supported by various case laws indicating that the replacement of parts that do not create a new asset but are necessary for the functioning of the existing machinery should be treated as revenue expenditure.

7. Disallowance of Expenses Towards Bank Charges/Reduction in Interest Rate:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, noting that the expenses were incurred for the conversion of rupee loans to foreign currency loans and for reducing the interest rate on loans, which were necessary for the business and provided immediate benefits.

8. Deduction Under Section 80IA/80IB:
The tribunal followed the principle of consistency and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the deduction under section 80IA/80IB, as the decision was consistent with the previous years and no reversal was brought on record.

9. Disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia):
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, noting that the payments were made to agents of non-resident ship owners and were not subject to TDS under section 194C or 195. The decision was supported by the CBDT circular and the tribunal's earlier ruling in a similar case.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed both the department's and the assessee's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all the issues. The tribunal's rulings were based on consistency with previous decisions, adherence to legal precedents, and specific provisions of the Income Tax Act.