9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 730 - AT - Income TaxDenial of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act Business of taking godowns on lease and letting them - Held that - There was no merit in the reasons of the lower authorities for making the disallowance - the assessee-corporation owns premises accommodating godowns at different places all over the State - each unit is an undertaking because food-grains are stored and handled and transported thereto and therefrom - there is no restriction in section 80-IB that an existing business unit cannot set up new undertakings to carry on the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains - The godowns where this business is to be carried on need not be owned by the assessee - When the assessee-corporation has set up these godowns in as many as in 73 towns and at different places in those towns, it is entitled for relief u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act in respect of each such new undertaking set up by it. The assessee had collected rentals for storing food grains and had engaged outsiders to transport the food grains - the assessee had been carrying on similar business would not disentitle the assessee from claiming relief u/s 80IB(11A) - deduction under Chap VIA, in respect of new undertakings set up by the assessee by way of expansion of the existing undertakings Relying upon as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd v CIT 1977 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court thus, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(11A), in respect of income derived from the new undertakings, warehouses, set up and operated from 1.4.2001 for storage, handling and transportation of food grains the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for verifying the claim of the assessee - Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of deduction u/s 37 of the Act - Contribution made to IAS Officers Association Building Held that - The assessee itself has added the amount of Rs.2 lakhs in the computation of income, and a separate addition hence is not called for - It is to verify this contention of the assessee and to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer, if the same is found to be correct that the CIT(A) set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with specific directions in that behalf there was no infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in this behalf Decided against Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of assessee's claim for relief under Section 80IB(11A) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.2 lakhs in respect of contribution to IAS Officers' Association Building. Issue 1: Denial of Assessee's Claim for Relief under Section 80IB(11A) The first common issue in all these appeals relates to the denial of assessee's claim for relief under S.80IB (11A) of the Act. The assessee company, which leases godowns to the Food Corporation of India (FCI), initially filed a return of income for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming a deduction under S.80IB. The Assessing Officer (AO) ignored the revised return filed by the assessee and completed the assessment based on the original return. The AO examined the claim for deduction under S.80IB(11A) and noted that the conditions for eligibility were not met, particularly the requirement for integrated handling, storage, and transportation of food grains. The AO concluded that the assessee did not add any new activities related to handling and transportation from 1.4.2001 onwards and disallowed the claim. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee's operations had started in 1958 and there was no new activity that began after 1.4.2001. The CIT(A) also referred to the Board's Circular No.8 of 2002 and a decision by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, concluding that the benefit under S.80IB(11A) could not be applied retrospectively. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the corporation had fulfilled all conditions under S.80IB(11A) and that each new warehouse established after 1.4.2001 should be considered a new undertaking eligible for the deduction. The Departmental Representative contended that the assessee was not an integrated undertaking and that its transportation and handling activities were incidental, not integrated. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had erred in their interpretation. It noted that the assessee corporation had set up new godowns after 1.4.2001, each constituting a new undertaking eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent behind S.80IB(11A) was to encourage the creation of storage capacities to minimize post-harvest losses. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under S.80IB(11A) for the new warehouses set up after 1.4.2001 and directed the AO to verify and allow the claim accordingly. Issue 2: Disallowance of Deduction for Contribution to IAS Officers' Association BuildingThe second issue, common in the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, relates to the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.2 lakhs for the contribution to the IAS Officers' Association Building. The assessee paid an advance of Rs.10,00,000 for the construction of IAS Officers Quarters and wrote it off in five equal installments, claiming it as a business expenditure under S.37 of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and that the assessee did not own the property. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the expenditure was incurred on government directions and was related to its business as the building was used for departmental meetings. The Departmental Representative supported the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for the assessment year 2005-06, noting that the assessee had added the amount in the computation of income. For the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the expenditure was capital in nature and not allowable under S.37. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s action and rejected the assessee's grounds on this issue. Conclusion:In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the court on 24.1.2014)
|
