2007 (9) TMI 311 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction u/s 80-IB
2. Application of Section 145(1)
3. Treatment of Interest Income
4. Disallowance of Telephone, Vehicle Maintenance, and Depreciation Expenses
5. Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234D

Summary:

1. Deduction u/s 80-IB:
The assessee contested the partial disallowance and subsequent withdrawal of the full deduction claimed u/s 80-IB by the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A). The assessee argued that the unit was a new industrial undertaking, eligible for 100% deduction. The AO disallowed the claim, stating the unit was formed by splitting/reconstruction of an existing business. The Tribunal found that the assessee had set up a new industrial undertaking, evidenced by new power connections, registration, and investments in new machinery and factory buildings. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80-IB as claimed by the assessee.

2. Application of Section 145(1):
The assessee challenged the confirmation of the application of Section 145(1) and the resulting trading addition of Rs. 1,00,000. The AO invoked Section 145(3) due to the absence of stock registers and applied a higher GP rate. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declared GP rate was consistent with previous years and better net profit rates were declared. Citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the sustained trading addition, allowing the assessee's grounds.

3. Treatment of Interest Income:
The assessee disputed the treatment of interest on FDRs as "income from other sources" instead of "income from business or profession." The AO and CIT(A) relied on various court decisions to classify the interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal upheld this classification, dismissing the assessee's ground.

4. Disallowance of Telephone, Vehicle Maintenance, and Depreciation Expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowances made by the AO for telephone expenses (Rs. 21,067), vehicle maintenance (Rs. 30,460), and depreciation (Rs. 18,277). The AO disallowed these expenses due to the lack of proper records. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming these disallowances, dismissing the assessee's grounds.

5. Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234D:
The assessee challenged the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234D, and the withdrawal of interest u/s 244A. The Tribunal noted that the AO must provide a speaking order with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The matter was restored to the AO for reconsideration, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80-IB and delete the trading addition, while upholding the treatment of interest income and disallowances of certain expenses. The issue of charging interest was remanded to the AO for a detailed order.