Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2014 (3) TMI 1101 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of claim of waiver of Sales Tax Loan claimed as a capital receipt by the assessee by holding it as taxable - Held that - Mumbai Bench in case of M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 1041 - ITAT Mumbai with reference to the scheme of the Rajasthan Government has held that the surplus arising out of the pre payment of loan which was credited to the P&L a/c is a capital receipt not liable to tax. In view of these binding precedents of the Special Bench as well as the co-ordinate Bench where this issue has been elaborately dealt with we hold that the surplus of Rs. 13, 30, 82, 204/- arising on the extinguishment of loan of Rs. 31, 74, 68, 000/- by making pre- payment of the same at Rs. 18, 43, 85, 796/- is a capital receipt on which sec. 41(1) is not applicable. Therefore we order to delete this addition. Disallowance of the claim of expenditure incurred on fly ash handling system & expenses for common property work - addition holding that the assessee gets benefit of this facility only for the five consecutive years and the ownership of this property can get transferred to Thermal Station not before five years - Held that - When the agreement is read as a whole it becomes evident that the system was installed by the assessee to get the fly ash which is an important component for manufacturing of cement on a regular basis. Thus the system is installed by the assessee for the purpose of its business and not for acquiring the capital asset. Further as per para 2.1 of the agreement RRVUNL has allowed the assessee to install the system only for collection of fly ash free of cost initially for a period of 5 years and as per Para 2.12 of the Agreement the system becomes the sole property of RRVUNL on the expiry/termination of the agreement. Thus the entire arrangement has benefited the assessee only by way of free supply of fly ash by incurring the expenditure on installation of the system which become the property of RRVUNL. By allowing 20% of the expenditure the authorities have accepted that the expenditure is revenue in nature and not a capital expenditure. There is no concept of deferment of expenditure in the I.T. Act. Thus we do not agree with the finding of the ld CIT(A) that the issue is to be approached from commonsense point of view by ignoring the legal provisions of the Act. Therefore the AO is directed to delete the disallowance made by him. Thus ground no. 2 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. Disallowance of contribution to District Administration towards construction of hospital at Ramganjmandi by holding that the same cannot be allowed as business expenditure - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT 1996 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court has held that any contribution made by an assessee to a public welfare fund which is directly connected or related to the carrying on of the assessee s business or which results in benefit to the assessee s business has to be regarded as an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961. Such a donation whether voluntary or at the instance of the authorities concerned when made to a Chief Minister s Drought Relief Fund or a District Welfare Fund established by the District Collector or any other fund for the benefit of the public and with a view to secure benefit to the assessee s business cannot be regarded as payment opposed to public policy. The mere fact that making of a donation for a charitable or public cause or in public interest results in the Government giving patronage or benefit can be no ground to deny the assessee a deduction of that amount under section 37(1) of the Act when such payment had been made for the purpose of the assessee s business. In view of above we have no hesitation in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of various expenses - AO has made the disallowance by making observation that assessee has failed to produce supporting evidence or expenditure - CIT-A directing the AO to recompute the FBT payable by the assessee on staff welfare expenditure general expenses social welfare expenses gift expenses and sales promotion - Held that - It is stated that all expenses are duly supported by evidence and therefore such adhoc disallowance is unjustified. It is also pleaded that once FBT is paid on the expenditure claimed the same cannot be disallowed in the tax computation for which decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is relied upon. We agree with the arguments of the Ld. AR that no adhoc disallowance can be made. We note that assessee has filed the complete details of expenditure as required by the AO. The AO has not specified any particular expenditure which is for personal use or for non business purpose. It is a case of a corporate entity where the contribution made to Gram Panchayat for various welfare measures at a place where the factory of assessee is located as a part of its social obligation is an allowable business expenditure as held in various cases referred in Ground No. 3 above. Further we agree with the contention of the assessee that once FBT is paid the expenditure cannot be subject matter of disallowance. The finding of ld CIT(A) that to the extent the expenditure is disallowed FBT should not be charged is therefore not correct. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|