2017 (4) TMI 341 - AT - Income Tax

Expenses on brand building - whether is of capital in nature and accordingly not allowable as revenue expenditure? - Held that - First ground is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for previous AY 2009-10 held that expenditure incurred on brand building was revenue in nature. Thus, under these facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the clear position of law as discussed above, we hold these expenses are revenue expenses and direct the Assessing Officer to treat the same as such and allow the same and, therefore, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Addition under section 14A read rule 8D - Held that - We direct the AO to delete the disallowance on account of interest under rule 8D(2)(ii) in toto and so far as the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, the investments made in the sister concerns are of strategic nature are also required to be excluded while calculating the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. We, therefore, direct the AO to rework the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) after excluding strategic investments and accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Additional depreciation allowed Interest was payable under section 234B - Held that - It was nobody s case that the assessee had committed a default in payment of advance tax when it actually paid it, the assessee could not be held liable to pay interest under section 234B. Insofar as the observations in the order of the Tribunal, that the assessee should have anticipated the events that took place in March, 1992, were concerned, they had no substance. It was rightly submitted that it was not possible for the assessee to anticipate the events that were to take place in the next financial year and pay advance tax on the basis of those anticipated events. It was to be held that in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not justified in law in holding that the interest was payable under section 234B

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of brand building expenses (capital vs. revenue).
2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
3. Inclusion of Section 14A disallowance in book profits under Section 115JB.
4. Amortization of premium paid for leasehold land.
5. Disallowance concerning unutilized Cenvat Credit.
6. Depreciation based on opening written down value.
7. Treatment of vehicle lease as finance lease.
8. Adjustment under Section 145A.
9. Additional depreciation under Section 32(ii)(a).
10. Charging of interest under Section 234B.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Brand Building Expenses (Capital vs. Revenue):
The Tribunal considered the issue of whether expenses on brand building claimed by the assessee were capital or revenue in nature. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, where it was held that there was no creation of a new capital asset, and the expenditure was for improving the existing brand. Therefore, the expenses were considered revenue in nature and allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the brand building expenses as revenue expenses and delete the disallowance.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The Tribunal addressed the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A for expenses related to earning exempt income. The AO had disallowed ?3310.48 lakhs, which was partly sustained by the CIT(A) to ?826.99 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the investments made by the assessee in subsidiary companies were for strategic purposes and should not be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii). The Tribunal directed the AO to rework the disallowance excluding strategic investments.

3. Inclusion of Section 14A Disallowance in Book Profits under Section 115JB:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of adding disallowance under Section 14A to book profits under Section 115JB was covered against the assessee by its own earlier decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the disallowance in book profits.

4. Amortization of Premium Paid for Leasehold Land:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue was previously decided against the assessee in multiple appeals. The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee.

5. Disallowance Concerning Unutilized Cenvat Credit:
The Tribunal found that the issue of unutilized Cenvat Credit was covered in favor of the assessee by its own earlier decisions. The Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee and directed the AO to allow the Cenvat Credit.

6. Depreciation Based on Opening Written Down Value:
The Tribunal noted that the issue was previously decided against the assessee in its own case. The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the assessee, confirming the adoption of the opening WDV by the AO.

7. Treatment of Vehicle Lease as Finance Lease:
The Tribunal found that the issue of treating vehicle lease as a finance lease was covered in favor of the assessee by its own earlier decision. The Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee, directing the AO to treat the lease rental as revenue expenditure.

8. Adjustment under Section 145A:
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had wrongly allowed the ground instead of sending it back to the AO for verification. The Tribunal directed the AO to recast the accounts considering excise duty and other taxes in opening stock, purchases, sales, and inventory, and decide the issue accordingly.

9. Additional Depreciation under Section 32(ii)(a):
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by its own earlier decisions. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow additional depreciation in subsequent years if the entire depreciation was not allowed in the first year of installation.

10. Charging of Interest under Section 234B:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid advance tax as per the provisions of the Act prevailing during the financial year. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that interest under Section 234B could not be charged based on retrospective amendments. The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue, providing detailed directions on each issue based on prior decisions and applicable legal principles.

← Previous Next →