2015 (9) TMI 61 - AT - Income Tax

Reduction in the disallowances under sections 80IA and 80IC - Allocation of remuneration to directors, audit fee and travelling expenses towards income of unit exempt under sec. 80IA and 80IC - Held that - We do not find reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below regarding the making of reduction in the disallowances under sections 80IA and 80IC of the Act on account of reallocation of directors remuneration, travelling expenses etc. on proportionate basis by the Assessing Officer in absence of the evidence furnished by the assessee that all the expenses were separately maintained in the eligible units as relying on earlier assessment years. We, however, find substance in the alternative arguments of AR that the allocation made by the Assessing Officer on the proportionate basis was excessive and disproportionate inasmuch as allocation of directors remuneration, travelling expenses and audit fee etc. to the Punjab Paper Unit amounted to double directors remuneration, travelling expenses etc. for Kala Amb Unit. We thus set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the alternative contention made by the Learned AR in this regard and while allocating the expenses to the eligible units take into consideration the expenses, if any, already debited by the assessee in these eligible units while computing the deduction claimed under sec. 80IA and 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on proportionate basis to avoid double addition, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Reduction of insurance claim received from the income eligible for exemption under sec. 80IC reducing the exemption - Held that - Assessing Officer following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT) held that there is no first degree nexus between the insurance/interest receipt and business undertaking hence, it does not form part of net profit of eligible industrial undertaking and the same cannot be treated as income derived from industrial undertaking. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the same with this noting that the assessee did not furnish evidence to substantiate that the claim that these were only repair expenses and not capital expenses. He noted further that ₹ 2,00,921 on account of fall of factory wall was already taken into consideration by the assessee.Since the assessee has failed to improve its case before us on the issue, we do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order in this regard. Same is upheld. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allocation of remuneration to directors, audit fee, and traveling expenses towards income of units exempt under sections 80IA and 80IC.
2. Reduction of insurance claim received from the income eligible for exemption under section 80IC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allocation of Remuneration to Directors, Audit Fee, and Traveling Expenses:

The primary issue in all three appeals concerns whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allocating remuneration to directors, audit fees, and traveling expenses towards the income of units exempt under sections 80IA and 80IC, thereby reducing the exemption available under these sections.

The assessee, a paper manufacturer with units in Punjab and Kala Amb (Himachal Pradesh), claimed deductions under sections 80IA and 80IC for its power unit in Punjab and paper unit at Kala Amb, respectively. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed portions of these deductions, which were subsequently confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). However, the ITAT had set aside these disallowances for fresh consideration based on additional evidence.

In the reassessment, the AO restored the disallowances, leading to the current appeals. The AO apportioned expenses incurred on directors' remuneration, traveling and conveyance of directors, and audit fees among the units. The assessee argued that it had separate directors for each unit and that expenses were debited in the accounts of the respective units. The AO did not find any defects in the accounts or audit reports but still allocated the expenses on a proportionate basis.

The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made on account of the valuation of power but upheld the remaining disallowances. The assessee contended that the allocation was arbitrary and unjustified, as the directors' remuneration and other expenses were already debited in the accounts of the respective units. The assessee also provided an alternative plea, suggesting a reallocation of expenses between the units to avoid double deductions.

The ITAT found substance in the alternative argument that the allocation made by the AO was excessive and disproportionate. The ITAT set aside the matter to the AO to examine the alternative contention and reallocate the expenses, considering the expenses already debited in the eligible units to avoid double addition.

2. Reduction of Insurance Claim from Income Eligible for Exemption:

In the assessment year 2008-09, an additional issue was raised regarding the reduction of the insurance claim received from the income eligible for exemption under section 80IC, thereby reducing the exemption.

The AO observed that the insurance receipt and interest appeared under 'other income' in the profit of the Kala Amb Unit. The assessee had taken the loss on account of the factory wall into consideration but had not reduced the insurance claim and interest from the profit for claiming deduction under section 80IC. The AO, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India, held that there was no first-degree nexus between the insurance/interest receipt and the business undertaking, and thus, it could not be treated as income derived from the industrial undertaking. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this view, noting the lack of evidence from the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the first appellate order on this issue, as the assessee failed to improve its case.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed. The matter of allocation of expenses is remanded to the AO for re-examination, while the reduction of the insurance claim from the income eligible for exemption is upheld.