2015 (6) TMI 102 - HC - Income Tax

Eligibility of deduction under Section 80IA - Tribunal allowed the claim - whether the generation unit is only the extension of existing business of the assessee and there was no business activity on the part of the undertaking (power generation) because? - Held that - As regards the first question, Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate wanted to file a written notes of submissions. We have, therefore, reserved our judgment on the first question, which we propose to deliver soon after the note by Mr. Khaitan and counter note, if any, by the learned advocate for the revenue are filed. Such note and counter note, if any, have to be filed on or before the first working day after the summer vacation. Disallowance of depreciation on capitalization of foreign gain/loss - Tribunal deleted the addition - Held that - As appear from the submissions advanced by the assessee himself that the claim could not have come within the four corner of Section 43A. Therefore, the claim for depreciation was altogether bad and illegal. The assessee did not incur any loss arising out of fluctuations in the exchange price. The assessee, on the contrary, claims to have incurred the expenditure of a sum of ₹ 49,62,133/- because it had got to get rid of the forward contracts which it had entered into for the purpose of protecting itself from the fluctuations of the foreign exchange.Therefore, the assessee might have claimed it as an expenditure which could have been considered in accordance with law. But there was no case for any claim being put forward on account of depreciation. - Decided in favour of revenue. Depreciation on forklift trucks - Tribunal allowing depreciation @100 - Held that - Electrically operated vehicles including battery power or fuel cell powered vehicles are entitled to 100% depreciation under Appendix I, Part-A, Item III(3)(xiii)(o) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the question is answered in the negative and against the revenue. Addition on account of advances written off by treating it as revenue in nature - Tribunal deleted the addition - Held that - The fact that the advances were made for purchasing the raw material made it an expenditure of a revenue character and, therefore, that was deductible. In the case before us the finding of fact is that the expenditure was incidental to the business. Therefore, the expenditure partook the character of revenue expenditure which is allowable deduction - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80IA for power generation unit.
2. Addition of depreciation on capitalization of foreign gain/loss.
3. Addition of depreciation on forklift trucks.
4. Addition of advances written off as revenue in nature.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the deduction under Section 80IA for a power generation unit. The Tribunal allowed a deduction of a specific amount, which the Revenue challenged. The fundamental requirement for claiming deduction under Section 80IA was questioned due to the power generation unit being an extension of the existing business without independent business activity. The product generated was transferred internally, not sold in the market. The Court reserved judgment on this issue for further submissions.

2. The second issue involves the addition of depreciation on capitalization of foreign gain/loss. The assessee claimed depreciation on actual expenditure due to forex fluctuations, which was capitalized as per section 43A. The Court found the claim for depreciation invalid as the expenditure did not result in a loss from exchange rate fluctuations. The matter was referred back to the assessing officer for further consideration.

3. The third issue concerns the addition of depreciation on forklift trucks. The Tribunal allowed 100% depreciation based on the classification of electrically operated vehicles under the Income Tax Rules. As forklift trucks did not qualify as energy-saving devices, the Court ruled against the revenue, upholding the deletion of the addition.

4. The fourth issue revolves around the addition of advances written off as revenue in nature. The CIT (Appeal) allowed the deduction based on the business nature of the advances, citing a precedent related to trade advances. The Tribunal upheld this decision without independent analysis. The Court affirmed the deduction, emphasizing the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure, concluding that the advances written off were incidental to the business and thus deductible.

In summary, the judgment addressed various tax-related issues concerning deductions, depreciation, and revenue nature of expenses, providing detailed analysis and rulings on each matter raised in the appeal.