2014 (12) TMI 136 - AT - Income Tax

Capital expenses or revenue expenses huge expenses towards repair and maintenance on machinery and plant made Held that - In respect of the addition(s) of ₹ 3,11,405/- and ₹ 4,26,400/-, such additions were also made in earlier years and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decision in DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA Versus BANCO PRODUCTS (I) LTD. 2012 (12) TMI 572 - ITAT AHMEDABAD wherein it has been held that the expenditure is in Revenue nature Expenses that were incurred on purchase of band knives for use in splitting machine - The nature of the item indicates that it is spare parts which require frequent replacement - the expenditure was incurred on removing the roller jammed in order to make it functional - the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue. Addition made u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D Held that - Assessee rightly contended that Rule 8D would be applicable only with effect from AY 2008-09 as decided in GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - the AO was not justified in computing the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 - the AO has observed that during the financial year, the assessee has received dividend income of ₹ 19,31,316/- and Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of Equity shares which is exempt under the IT Act - The AO has observed that the assessee has not given details as to when shares were acquired and what was the source of financing cost of acquisition of shares, etc. in earlier years and current year - the assessee has earned exempt income, therefore the expenditure related to earning of such income would be disallowable in terms of the provisions of section 14A of the Act - disallowance of ₹ 2,05,481/- is restricted to disallowance of ₹ 1 lac Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made on account of capital expenditure.
2. Deletion of addition made on account of disallowance under section 14A.
3. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv).
4. Cross-objection regarding disallowance under section 14A.
5. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234D.
6. Rejection of application under section 154 for rectification of mistakes.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Capital Expenditure:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition amounting to Rs. 23,64,019/- made on account of capital expenditure. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue argued that the expenditure extended the life of plant and machinery and should be considered capital expenditure. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenses were for replacing parts of machines, which did not create new assets but preserved existing ones. The Tribunal emphasized that such expenses are revenue in nature, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation that replacement of parts constitutes current repairs.

2. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Disallowance Under Section 14A:
The Revenue's appeal included a ground against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,05,481/- made under section 14A for expenses incurred to earn exempt income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had actually confirmed this addition, making the Revenue's ground infructuous. Consequently, this ground was rejected as not maintainable.

3. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80IA(4)(iv):
The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,14,275/- related to the disallowance of a claim under section 80IA(4)(iv). The CIT(A) had relied on previous ITAT decisions favoring the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee in similar cases, including those involving the assessee's group concerns.

4. Cross-Objection Regarding Disallowance Under Section 14A:
The assessee filed a cross-objection against the confirmation of a disallowance of Rs. 2,05,481/- under section 14A. The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D, which the AO applied, was applicable only from AY 2008-09 as per the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1 lakh, partially allowing the cross-objection.

5. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234D:
The assessee's cross-objection also included a ground against the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234D. The Tribunal noted that this issue was consequential in nature and did not require independent adjudication.

6. Rejection of Application Under Section 154 for Rectification of Mistakes:
The assessee appealed against the rejection of an application under section 154 for rectification of mistakes related to income from sales and provisions for debit notes. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without verifying the assessee's claims against the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claims and rectify the mistakes if the assessee's contentions were correct, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2000-01 was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on capital expenditure and section 80IA(4)(iv) deductions, restricted the disallowance under section 14A, and directed verification of claims in the rectification application under section 154.

← Previous Next →