Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 617 - HC - Income TaxAddition on account of the provision made for settlement with Union - Whether the same was contingent in nature since the labour demand was under negotiation and ultimate settlement was contingent on the conclusion of the negotiation? - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2014 (5) TMI 322 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] even the provision for pending labour demands and its disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is rightly deleted. The Tribunal has found that the demands were pending. There was wage issue raised by the labour unions and, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and to maintain industrial harmony and peace, the assessee company made a provision. The revenue may term it as contingent in nature. However, we do not find that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in that regard raise any substantial question of law. Remission of advance liability - treated as capital receipt - whether the remission of a sum obtained by the assessee is taxable receipt u/s 28(iv) and / or u/S. 41(1) - HELD THAT:- Issue covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT] This was a case of this very assessee. Disallowance on account of special pension liability - Whether the expenses has not been incurred during the regular course of business and hence, is of the nature which is for bringing in benefit of enduring nature and hence, the Capital expenses?- HELD THAT:- This one also considered by this Court on multiple occasions and not entertained. Reference in this respect can be made to an order in assessee's own case [2014 (5) TMI 322 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Treatment to expenses related to setting up of a new foundry as revenue expenditure - whether the expenditure is related to the setting up of a new foundry, activity of which would be different from the activity of the assessee company and hence, cannot be said to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in existence and incidental to it? - HELD THAT:- . As the assessee could not complete the project and abandoned the same, the Revenue’s objection to such expenditure was allowed. The Tribunal, however, on facts on the case noted that the assessee was trying to set up a new foundry but the unit was in the nature of expansion of existing business. That being the position, the expenditure was correctly allowed by the Tribunal. Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in directing to treat the technical services fee amounting to ₹ 4,92,14,495/- as revenue expenditure without appreciating the fact that the employees cost in respect of employees associated with foreign technician for development of new models is capital expenses and not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in existence but relates to development of new model?”
|