9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1151 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of electric power charges - Held that - The assessee has already been allowed depreciation on the amount of electric power capitalized and no case for allowing the same as revenue expenditure could be made before us, and accordingly, the ground no.1 of the assessee is dismissed. - Decided against assesse. Disallowance of garden expenses - Held that - Garden expenses were incurred by the assessee for the business purpose and copies of bills were also produced before the AO and the CIT(A), and therefore, there is no case for disallowance of 20% of the total garden expenses claimed by the assessee.- Decided in favour of assesse. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that - The AO has estimated 10% of those expenses for the purpose of disallowance. For A.Y. 2007-08, we have also noted that the provisions of Rule 8D were wrongly applied being prospective in nature. We therefore, direct to delete the addition. The result is that the ground of the Assessee for A.Y.2006-07 and 2007-08 are allowed but for A.Y.2008-09 this ground is dismissed. Exemption u/s 10A claim pertaining to SEZ unit. - Held that - We find that the Assessing Officer has not allowed any opportunity to the assessee for claiming exemption u/s 10A after computing the business income of the alleged eligible undertaking at a positive figure for the first time. In our considered view, while making the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to compute the total income as per the provisions of Income-tax Act and therefore, in allowing deductions/exemptions also to the assessee which is statutorily allowable to the assessee. In the circumstances, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the assessee for deductions u/s 10A of the Act and thereafter passing an order in accordance with the law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of professional charges - Held that - The assessee has furnished the details of the expenditure hence it was unwarranted on the part of the AO to estimate the impugned disallowance in the absence of any specific contrary finding. We, therefore, reverse those findings and direct to allow the claim. - Decided in favour of assessee. Taxing MAT liability - Held that - AO is otherwise duty bound to recalculate the tax under MAT provision after giving effect of the Appellate orders. Naturally, if MAT credit is available as per law the AO shall grant the same to the assessee under the provisions of the Act. We order accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made after making adjustment of Section 145A - Held that - There was no fallacy in the findings of learned CIT(A) when it was found on facts that the amount in question was included in the closing stock and that the assessee is following this method year after year. We hereby affirm the factual as well as legal finding given by learned CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue.- Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance of expenditure held as capital expenditure and the disallowance made u/s.14A - CIT(A) deleted the levy - Held that - Genuineness of the expenditure is not in doubt. No material has been brought on record to show that the assessee has concealed any particulars of income or has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income in this respect. On the basis of particulars furnished in respect of expense in question, it was inferred that the same was capital in nature and only depreciation was allowable to the assessee. The claim of the assessee was that it was a revenue expenditure as no tangible asset was acquired by the assessee by incurring the said expenditure. Thus the opinion of CIT(A) that the disallowance was because of difference of opinion and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained is justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of electric power charges as capital expenditure. 2. Disallowance of garden expenses. 3. Invocation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Claim pertaining to SEZ unit. 5. Disallowance of professional charges. 6. Taxing MAT liability. 7. Disallowance under Section 40a(ia). 8. Deletion of addition by CIT(A) pertaining to estimation of profit. 9. Deletion of addition made by AO after adjustment of Section 145A. 10. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Electric Power Charges as Capital Expenditure: The Assessee contended that the AO should grant depreciation on the disallowed amount treated as capital expenditure. The AO had disallowed Rs. 13,30,952/- as revenue expenditure but allowed depreciation. The First Appellate Authority confirmed this, noting the Assessee admitted the expenditure as capital. The ITAT upheld the AO's decision, referencing a prior ITAT decision in the Assessee's case, and dismissed the Assessee's ground. 2. Disallowance of Garden Expenses: The Assessee's appeal for disallowance of garden expenses was allowed by referencing a prior ITAT decision for A.Y. 2005-06, which found garden expenses incurred for business purposes and disallowed the Revenue's 20% disallowance. Thus, the ITAT allowed this ground for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08. 3. Invocation of Section 14A: For A.Y. 2008-09, the ITAT confirmed the Revenue's disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D, noting the statutory formula for determining expenditure related to exempt income. For A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, the ITAT directed deletion of the disallowance, as Rule 8D was wrongly applied prospectively. 4. Claim Pertaining to SEZ Unit: The ITAT referred the issue back to the AO for verification, following a prior ITAT decision for A.Y. 2004-05, which required the AO to allow statutory exemptions and deductions after recomputing business income. 5. Disallowance of Professional Charges: The ITAT reversed the AO's disallowance of 1/5 of professional charges, noting the Assessee had furnished sufficient details of the expenditure, making the AO's estimation unwarranted. 6. Taxing MAT Liability: The ITAT directed the AO to recalculate the MAT liability, considering the Appellate orders for prior years and to allow any available MAT credit as per law. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Disallowance under Section 40a(ia): The ITAT directed that the disallowed amount under Section 40a(ia) should be allowed in the year it was actually paid, following the CIT(A)'s holding that the provision allows for such treatment. 8. Deletion of Addition by CIT(A) Pertaining to Estimation of Profit: The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of profit estimation, referencing a prior ITAT decision which found the AO's assumption of gross profit rate incorrect and upheld the CIT(A)'s order. 9. Deletion of Addition Made by AO after Adjustment of Section 145A: The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 145A, noting the Assessee's consistent method of including taxes in closing stock and the factual correctness of the CIT(A)'s findings. 10. Deletion of Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c): The ITAT confirmed the deletion of penalty, referencing a prior ITAT decision which found no positive material showing the expenditure claimed was false or bogus. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court's stance in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. that making a non-sustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Conclusion: The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, with detailed references to prior ITAT decisions and statutory provisions guiding the judgments.
|
