Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1608 - AT - Income TaxExpenditure towards liquidated damages - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has accepted the claim for liquidated damages/compensation. We find that CIT(A) has in principle accepted the allowability of claim for liquidated damages as a business expenditure. It is a settled law that the expenditure is allowable as a business expenditure if it is incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency. Commercial expediency is a term of wide import and has been held to include such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure incurred though not under any legal obligation but still it is allowable as a business expenditure if incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency and the method of recognition is followed from year to year. The assessee is following the said method in earlier years and no disallowance has been made. Before us, no material has been placed by the Revenue that the expenditure is not a genuine expenditure or has been incurred to benefit any group concerns. Considering the totality of the facts we are of the view that the expenditure is allowable. Thus, the ground of Assessee is allowed Disallowance of higher depreciation - HELD THAT:- since both the parties have admitted that the facts of the case in the present ground are identical to that of earlier years, we therefore following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2002-03 and for similar reasons hold that assessee is eligible to claim depreciation @ 80% with respect to plant and machinery used Plant Nos.4 and 8 in the manufacture of air / gas / fluid systems but is not eligible for 100% depreciation in respect of plant and machinery used in the manufacture of heat pumps. Thus, the ground of assessee is partly allowed. Disallowance of Short Term Incentive Plan (STIP) - HELD THAT:- It is Assessee’s submission that it has been consistently paying performance based incentives in the past and which has been allowed. However, during the year, the assessee has booked the expenditure on wholesome basis. We further find that pre-declared scheme is dated 22.12.2002 recommended by the VP HR and it was by the committee only on 28.05.2003 i.e., after the close of year. The AO has given a finding that the amounts were not credited to respective employees account in the instant year. Hence, we find no merit in claim of assessee. But the assessee is entitled to deduction of amounts, if any paid under the proposed scheme. In the result, the ground No.7 of the Assessee is partly allowed. Depreciation on knowhow - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present ground is with respect to depreciation on knowhow. Before us it is assessee’s contention that that technical know-how has been acquired in the first half of the year. However before us no external evidence has been furnished by the Assessee to demonstrate that the asset has been put to use. The evidence from Division head of the Assessee itself could not be the only basis for demonstrating the evidence to demonstrate the asset being put to use. In such a situation we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus, the ground No.8 of Assessee is dismissed. Disallowance of club expenses - HELD THAT:- The expenses have been disallowed by the Revenue authorities by holding it to be not for the purpose of business. On the other hand it is Assessee’s contention that the expenses have been incurred by the employees for the purpose of business. Before us. Revenue has not placed any material to demonstrate that the expenses were not incurred by the employees of the Assessee. We find that the issue of allowability of club membership fees incurred for employees u/s 37(1) of the Act arose before for Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Glass Manufacturing Ltd [2012 (9) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT] held the expenses to be a pure business expenses. Before us. Revenue has not placed on record any contrary binding decision nor could point out as to how the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is not applicable to the present facts. We therefore relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Apex Court hold the club expenses to be an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) Adhoc disallowance of expenses - HELD THAT:- no distinguishing feature in the facts of the case under consideration and that of earlier years has been pointed out by the revenue. Before us, the submission of Ld AR that in subsequent years CIT(A) has deleted the adhoc deletions made by AO has not been controverted by Revenue. In such circumstances and following the reasoning as given while deciding the Assessee’s appeal for AY 2002-03 and for similar reasons, hold that no disallowance of expenses on adhoc basis is called for in the present case. We therefore direct its deletion Deduction u/s 80HHC - items to be considered in total turnover and the items to be considered in export turnover - HELD THAT:- While applying the deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, the AO had excluded certain items and included certain items against which the Ld. CIT(A) has given relief in respect of certain items and upheld the other items. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the respective portions of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Both the Authorised Representatives have made extensive arguments in support of their respective claims. However, the issue of various aspects of claim of High Court and the Apex Court in various decisions and we proceed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble to adjudicate the issues raised by making reference to the said decisions relied upon by the Ld.A.R. for the assessee and Ld.D.R. for the Revenue. Determination of total turnover - HELD THAT:- The plea of the assessee is that the scrap is generated during the course of manufacturing. The aforesaid contention of the assessee is not controverted by the Revenue. In such a situation, we find that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Punjab Steel Industries India [2014 (5) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT] would be applicable to the present facts and therefore the sale of scrap cannot be considered as part of “total turnover” for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, identical issue arose in Assessee’s own case in AY 2002-03 wherein the issue was decided in favour of the Assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal. Exchange Difference - Assessee fairly admitted that the said difference to the extent of sales would form part of the total turnover and the balance needs to be excluded. We find merit in the plea of the assessee that exchange difference to the extent of sales would be included as part of the total turnover. Non-exclusion of business losses - HELD THAT:- Profits if any of the representatives of the assessee ought to be excluded u/s 80HHC of the Act, so consequently the losses have to be excluded under Explanation baa (2) of Sec.80HHC of the Act and consequently the profits eligible for claiming the deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act should be increased. We find merit in the plea of the assessee as Explanation (baa) to Sec.80HHC of the Act provides that the profits of any branch office, warehouse or any other establishment of the assessee situated outside India ought to be revised from the profits of business computed under the head of profits and gains of business and profession. Consequently in cases from the any loss of over-seas, branch or office then the same also needs to be excluded and the profits eligible to claim deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act should be increased and we direct so. Claim of u/s deduction u/s 80HHC by the amount of deduction allowed u/s 80IB - HELD THAT:- AR fairly admitted that the method adopted by the AO has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Great Eastern Exports [2010 (11) TMI 91 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it had approved the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Hindustan Mint and Agro Products P Ltd [2009 (6) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-C] and therefore the ground of the Assessee will have to be dismissed. Addition on account of adjustment made to closing stock - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present ground is with respect to adjustment made to closing stock in terms to Sec.145A of the Act. We find that CIT(A) after considering the decision of Mumbai tribunal in the case of Gandhar Oil Refinery decided the issue in favour of the Assessee. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus, the ground No.1 of Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of lease rent - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition made on account of lease rentals. Before us it is submitted that in no fallacy has been pointed out by the revenue in the order of CIT(A). earlier year the addition has been deleted by the tribunal. Before us, We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of medical expenses - HELD THAT:- We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material disallowance of additional medical expenses. We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue in assessee’s favour had relied upon the order of his predecessor for AY 2002-03. Before us, Ld AR submitted that in AY 2002-03 CIT(A) on identical facts had decided the issue in assessee’s favour and the issue was not agitated by the Revenue. The aforesaid contention of the Ld AR has not been controverted by the Revenue. We further find that identical issue in AY 2002-03 was decided in Assessee’s favour. In view of the aforesaid fact, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Computation of deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has noted that if losses of erstwhile Thermax Water Technologies Ltd has been completely setoff and no loss is available to be carried forward then the question of setting of losses during the year does not arise. Before us Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the finding of CIT(A) and therefore we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.
|