Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1438 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance u/s. 37(2A) - expenditure on business meetings and conferences, Entertainment Expenses of employees accompanying guests and expenditure of beverages provided at the annual general meeting - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for the AY. 1996-97 the assessee claimed 25% relatably to such nature. We find the Tribunal consistently accepted 25% as claimed by the assessee . In the light of the same the assessee’s claim is allowed and the revenue’s ground is rejected. Disallowance of expenditure on business meetings and conferences - we direct the AO to frame the disallowance. Expenses on food and beverages provided to business associates of the company in the offices and factories allowed. While deciding the appeal for the earlier AY. the Tribunal had disallowed the telephone expenditure and had allowed expenditure incurred on food. Respectfully following the orders of the two earlier years telephone expenses claimed by the assessee stand disallowed and expenditure incurred under the head food expenses is allowed as per the order of the last AY. Ground No. 3 is partly allowed. Depreciation on leased assets - Held that:- We find that initially the SI had denied to have any transaction with the assessee company. But later on it confirmed that it had supplied electricity meters to ASEPB, that it had received ₹ 11. 19 lakhs from the assessee, that the FAA had not alleged that the letter of SI was not genuine, that his only objection was the late submission of the letters of the SI and the failure of the assessee to produce the evidence during the assessment proceedings. In our opinion, the stand taken by the FAA was not justifiable. If he had any doubt about the genuineness of the transaction, he himself should have made further enquiries or should have directed the AO to conduct further investigation. The assessee is entitled to file additional evidences before the appellate authorities. Non filing of evidence before the AO or late filing of evidences cannot be the base for denying a legitimate claim made by an assessee. We have perused the documents relied upon by the assessee and a perusal of those documents clearly establish that assessee had made payment to SI and the APSEB was in possession of the assets leased by the assessee. Therefore, reversing the order of the FAA, we decide Ground. in favour of the assessee. Compensation received upon termination of distributorship - nature of receipt - revenue or capital - Held that:- After the judgment, delivered in the case of Shaw Wallace (1932 (3) TMI 18 - Bombay High Court) a principle is being followed in the tax jurisprudence that there is a difference between compensation or damages paid or received for non-performance of a contract entered into in the course of business and compensation or damages paid for discontinuance of the business itself. The former may be treated as income but the amount paid for terminating a business cannot, ordinarily, be deemed to be income from that business taxable under the Act. In the one case, one gives up the source from which the income arises; in the other, one merely gives up anticipated profits, which would have accrued to him if the contract had not been discontinued or terminated, for cash payment. In the first case amount in question will not be taxable, but in the other it will be. In the case before us, it is found that a contract was entered into by the assessee with JV and on termination of the agreement it received solatium. The terms of and conditions of the termination-agreement clearly prove that the there was loss of source of income of the assessee. So, reversing the order of the FAA, we decide ground against the assessee. Reduction of claim u/s. 80-IA on account of expenditure falling under section 35 - Held that:- Before us, Representatives of the sides agreed that the matter needs further verification and could be restored back to the file of the AO. Accordingly, we direct him to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Ground is decided in favour of the assessee, in part. Deduction u/s. 80HHC - whether sales tax collected by the assessee would form part of total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 80HHC? - Held that:- Both the parties agreed that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. (2000 (8) TMI 73 - BOMBAY High Court) . In the light of the aforesaid decision we uphold the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue Receipt from lease rentals and finance and service charges on hire purchase contract, as per the provisions of clause (baa) of Explanation to section 80-HHC - Held that:- Identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee in its own case for the AY 1995-96 wherein held clause (baa) is not applicable to the finance and service charges received by the assessee. Further, this income has already been included in the business turnover of the assessee company. Accordingly , we direct the AO not to reduce 90% of the finance and service charges from the profits of the business. Deduction allowable u/s. 80HHC shall be recomputed accordingly. We would also like to add that principle of netting is a Judicially settled principle, hence, if there is a nexus between the receipts and the expenses incurred in connection with thereof, the set off should be made and only 90% of the net balances should be excluded and in the event of expenditure is more than the receipt, nothing is liable to be excluded under Clause (baa) of explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act Deduction claimed u/s. 80-IA - AO reduced the amounts in question i. e. , miscellaneous income, while computing the profits - Held that:- We find that the issue of miscellaneous income, for computing the deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act, has been dealt in the case of Maxcare Laboratories (2004 (6) TMI 259 - ITAT CUTTACK) held whenever the Legislature had intended to give the benefit of deductions to the wider extent of income and not only to income derived from the industrial undertaking, it has used expressions like “profit attributed to”. To give an extended benefit, the statute has used the words “income derived from any business of an industrial undertaking”. Thus, any income generated out of an act which is required to be undertaken essentially for carrying on the business of industrial undertaking is to be considered for computing the deduction under section 80-IA Depreciation on leased assets - Held that:- Held that: As the assessee was the owner of the assets leased out to different parties, so, it was entitled to claim depreciation. The FAA had gone through the lease agreements, confirmation letters and other relevant material. As the existence of assets and their use is in doubt, so, the AO, in our opinion was not justified in denying the claim of depreciation made by assessee. We also find that FAA had allowed depreciation @50%, as the assets were used for less that 180 days during the year under consideration. It is also a fact that two of the lessees are state electricity boards i. e. APSEB and RSEB. Both of them have confirmed the lease transaction and installation of machinery/ assets. The FAA had observed that it could not be alleged that govt. undertakings had colluded with the assessee to mislead and defraud the govt. of its reveune by giving wrong confirmations. So, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the FAA. Confirming his order, we decide the Ground against the AO. Deduction u/s. 80HHC for computation of profits u/s. 115JA - Held that:- We find that the FAA had asked the AO to pass a speaking order after considering the submission of the assesse. If he has not passed the order till date, he is directed to follow the instruction of the FAA to consider the cases relied upon by the AR, before us, and to pass an order within period of three months of receipt of this order. Ground No. 3 is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part Disallowance of expenditure incurred on Mango Bridge - revenue or capital - Held that:- We find that the assessee had contributed a sum of ₹ 3. 18 crores to construct a new bridge, that AO had not brought on record /any fact to prove that assessee gained enduring benefit by partial contribution to the construction of the new bridge. In our opinion, the bridge facilitated the better transportation of the goods to and from the factory site. If the assessee is received any benefit it was at an advantage of revenue nature. Therefore, we are of the opinion that order of FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Endorsing the same, we decide Ground against the AO. Disallowance of expenditure on additional water lines - revenue or capital - Held that:- The facts of the case under consideration were similar to the facts of the case of Chougule Chemiclas Pvt. Ltd. (1994 (12) TMI 16 - BOMBAY High Court) held that the expenditure incurred on laying new pipeline for augmenting the existing water supply in the factory premises was allowable as revenue expenditure. Disallowance of vendor development expenses - AO found that the assessee had treated the said expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure - Held that:- We find that the assessee had incurred an expenditure of ₹ 37. 70 crores, that in the books of account it had treated the expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure, that in the computation of income and during the assessment proceedings it claimed that expenditure was of revenue nature, that the AO had not given any finding about allowability of the expenditure, that the expenditure was incurred for developing the tools/components. In our opinion, the entries in the books of account do not decide allowability of expenditure as revenue expenditure. Nor are the books decisive to hold an expenditure as capital expenditure. What has to be seen is the nature of expenditure. The FAA has given categorical finding of fact that expenditure did not add to the fixed capital of the assessee or helped it in acquiring the source of profit. Therefore, in our opinion the FAA was justified in allowing the expenditure as revenue expenditure - Decided against AO Disallowance of consultancy fee paid on account of business process reengineering - Held that:- We find that the AO had allowed half of the expenditure for the year under consideration, that the assessee had availed the services of a consultancy firm to improve the working of the company. As that fee was paid for improving the existing system, therefore, in our opinion the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity in allowing claim - Decided against AO.
|