Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1357 - AT - Income TaxExpenses incurred for replacement of electricity meters - nature of expenditure - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- In appeal, the CIT-(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that expenses incurred on replacement of electricity meters is of revenue nature while following the orders of his predecessors for the earlier Assessment Year. On further appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal held that these electricity meters have to be replaced periodically on account of obsolescence, meters burning out or becoming faulty etc. and these expenses are necessarily required to be incurred for the purposes of carrying out business operations. The expenditure is incurred for the purposes of enabling the Assessee to carry out its business more efficiently and more profitably. The replacement of meters does not increase the generation and/or distribution capacity of electricity. Moreover, as held in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT (1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT) the test of enduring benefit is not a conclusive test to be applied mechanically without considering the facts of a given case. In the above facts, the expenses on replacement of electricity meters would be on revenue and not on capital account. The Counsel for the Respondent has not been able to point out that how the conclusion of the Tribunal in the earlier years will not be applicable to the present Assessment Year. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the ground No.1, raised by the revenue is dismissed Deduction u/s 80IA - proportionate apportionment and allocation of Head Office expenses amongst Goa and Windmill Units respectively while calculating profits eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the said units - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee in respect of impugned issue by placing reliance on various decisions of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case passed up to A.Y 2010-11 and also on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case passed up to A.Y 2008-09. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had also relied on the order passed his predecessor for A.Y 2012-13 and granted relief to the assessee. In assessee’s own case for A.Y 2006-07 had decided this issue in favour of the assessee, wherein it was held the findings of the facts by the ITAT for the prior assessment years have been referred to and if at all any reference needed, paragraphs 17 and 18 of the ITAT’s order are complete answers”. Therefore, the factual findings do not raise any substantial question of law in relation to disclaim as well. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D(2) - Assessee made suo-moto disallowance - HELD THAT:- By placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.,[2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and in the case of HDFC bank [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the interest disallowance made by the Ld. A.O under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. We find that the factual findings given by the ld CITA on the availability of interest free funds with the assessee company remain uncontroverted by the revenue before us and hence do not find any infirmity in the said finding of the ld CITA. Disallowance of indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rules CIT(A) had directed the Ld. A.O to exclude investments made in subsidiaries, being strategic investments and to consider only those investments which had yielded exempt income during the year. We find that with regard to exclusion of investments made in subsidiaries and strategic investments made by the assessee, we find that this issue is recently settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT], against the assessee. Accordingly, this aspect of the ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. We also find that the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI], had held that only those investments which had yielded exempt income need to be considered for the purpose of working out the disallowance of indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. A.O is directed to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rules by considering only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. Disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules while computing the book profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- We find that Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by following the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI]. But we find that the Special Bench had only held that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules cannot be imputed in clause (f) of Explanation (1) to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. The special Bench also held that the actual expenses debited to profit and loss account which are incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income need to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act for the purpose of 115JB - Since, in the instant case, the assessee had already worked out the actual disallowance of ₹ 81,47,392/- as indirect expenses incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income, we direct the Ld. AO to adopt the same figure for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, the ground No. 7 raised by the Revenue is partly allowed.
|