9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Treating the revised return of income as non est. 2. Computation of MAT tax liability and income assessed as per the provisions of section 115JB. 3. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C. 4. Disallowance of depreciation on motor car. 5. Disallowance of electricity expenses. 6. Disallowance of foreign traveling expenses of Directors. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I. Treating the Revised Return of Income as Non Est: The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the revised return of income filed by the appellant-company as non est. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had taken into consideration the details filed with the revised return for computation of total income, thus dismissing the appellant's grievance. II. Computation of MAT Tax Liability and Income Assessed as per the Provisions of Section 115JB: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the basis that, as per section 115JB, book profit is allowed to be reduced by the amount of profits eligible for deduction under sections 80HHC and 80HHF, but not under sections 80-IA or 80-IB. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT, which mandates the Assessing Officer to accept the authenticity of the accounts as per the Companies Act without modifying the book profits shown in the P&L Account. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that section 115JB concerns the computation of book profit, not total income, and deductions under section 80-IB are not applicable for computing book profit under this section. III. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The CIT(A) upheld the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, referencing the Madras High Court decision in CIT v. Geetha Ramakrishna Mills (P.) Ltd., which held that interest is applicable even when the assessment is made under section 115JB. The Tribunal confirmed this view, citing the Special Bench decision in Ashima Synthetics, which held that interest under sections 234B and 234C is chargeable even when income is determined under section 115JB. IV. Disallowance of Depreciation on Motor Car: The Assessing Officer disallowed 1/5th of the depreciation on motor cars due to personal use, but the CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, holding that a company cannot have personal use of motor cars. The Tribunal, referencing the Gujarat High Court decision in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT, directed the Assessing Officer to verify the terms and conditions of service and re-adjudicate the issue accordingly. V. Disallowance of Electricity Expenses: The Assessing Officer disallowed half of the electricity expenses due to the non-availability of the rent agreement. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, stating that the non-furnishing of the rent agreement cannot be the basis for such disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the disallowance was made on guesswork without a proper basis. VI. Disallowance of Foreign Traveling Expenses of Directors: The Assessing Officer disallowed the foreign traveling expenses of the Directors due to a lack of evidence regarding business generated from the trip to South Africa. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, finding that the expenses were incurred for business purposes and the company had received NRI bookings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that no material was brought on record by the revenue to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, while the appeals of the revenue were statistically partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on most issues, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
|
