2015 (7) TMI 1210 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of deprecation on intangible assets - Held that - Notably in the past years assessee had purchased Inter Trade Division of Mahindra and such disallowance was worked out by the application of clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2). Ld. CIT(A) has also sustained the disallowance by noticing that assesse has not brought any material on record to show as to how the disallowance was not reasonable.Before us the inability of the assessee to prove unreasonableness of the disallowance continues as noticed by the Ld. CIT(A); and therefore we hereby affirm the disallowance of Rs. 10, 51, 252/- as above. Thus on this aspect also the assessee fails. Liability towards post retirement medical claim for the employees - Held that - Assessee fairly conceded that similar issue came before the Tribunal in the case of the group concern M/s. Mahindra &Mahindra Ltd. for assessment year 2007-08 similar liability has been held to be an unascertained liability which was not allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Following the aforesaid precedent we hereby affirm the stand of the Lower Authorities in deciding the issue against the assessee. Thus on this aspect also assessee fails. Addition on account of discrepancy in the AIR report - Held that - CIT(A) has directed the AO to give further opportunity to the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh. We find no reason for any grievance on the part of the assessee as the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to give opportunity to the assessee of being heard and thereafter pass an order afresh. The said direction to the AO is hereby affirmed and accordingly the said ground is disposed of. Grant of short credit for the TDS - Held that - We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to grant credit for TDS under section 199 of the Act in accordance with law. We find no infirmity in the said direction of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby affirmed. Addition under section 14A on the basis of clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) - Held that - Assessee has furnished the audited financial statement for the relevant period which clearly supports the inference drawn by the Ld. CIT(A). On the basis of the balance sheet as on 31/3/2009 it is quite clear that the loan funds in this year have substantially decreased than the preceding year. Further the entire investment which yielded exempt income has been made during the year under consideration. Further the assessee has earned profit after tax of Rs. 4471.11 lacs and the share capital plus reserves and surplus of the assessee company stand at Rs. 13332.50 lacs. The aforesaid analysis of the financial statement clearly supports the inference of the Ld. CIT(A) that the ratio of judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) is applicable. The interest free funds available with the assessee are sufficient to cover impugned investments and therefore it could be presumed that the investments have been made out of interest free funds. DR has not brought out any cogent reasoning or material which would enable us to take a view different than of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore we hereby affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation claim on intangible assets
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act
3. Deduction claim for post-retirement medical liability
4. Addition due to discrepancy in AIR report
5. TDS credit discrepancy
6. Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition under section 14A

Issue 1: Depreciation claim on intangible assets:
The assessee's claim for depreciation on intangible assets amounting to Rs. 8,92,714 was rejected by the Tribunal based on a precedent from a previous assessment year where a similar claim was denied. The intangible assets were acquired in the past years, and the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the depreciation claim, leading to the assessee failing on this ground of appeal.

Issue 2: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act:
The disallowance of Rs. 10,31,252 under section 14A was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) as administrative expenses related to exempted dividend income were not proven to be unreasonable by the assessee. The Tribunal affirmed the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed on this aspect as well.

Issue 3: Deduction claim for post-retirement medical liability:
The claim for deduction of Rs. 9,46,480 representing liability towards post-retirement medical claims was denied by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) as it was considered an unascertained liability dependent on future obligations. The Tribunal affirmed the decision against the assessee based on a precedent involving a similar liability from a group concern, resulting in the assessee failing on this aspect too.

Issue 4: Addition due to discrepancy in AIR report:
An addition of Rs. 65,751 was made by the AO due to a discrepancy in the AIR report. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and decide the issue afresh. The Tribunal affirmed this direction, and the ground was disposed of.

Issue 5: TDS credit discrepancy:
The appeal of the assessee regarding a short credit for TDS at Rs. 1,69,32,633 as against Rs. 1,73,03,807 claimed in the return of income was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found no issue with the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to grant credit for TDS under section 199 of the Act, affirming the decision.

Issue 6: Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition under section 14A:
The Revenue's appeal was against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 84,16,188 made by the AO under section 14A based on clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the deletion citing the absence of interest cost attributable to investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) based on the financial statements provided by the assessee, resulting in the appeal of the assessee being partly allowed and that of the Revenue being dismissed.