2022 (5) TMI 1608 - ITAT MUMBAI

Disallowance u/s.43B - leave encashment payable for non-retiring employees - HELD THAT:- Leave encashment payable for employees who had retired during the year alone would fall within the ambit of Section 43B(f) of the Act and if the same is not paid within the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, the said expenditure shall not be allowed as deduction. In respect of provision made as stated supra for leave encashment in respect of non-retiring employees, the same does not become payable at all to those employees. In other words, the provision is made for expenses accrued but not due for payment during the year. Hence, the provisions of Section 43B(f) of the Act could not be put into operation in respect of the said provision. In any case, we find that the issue in dispute is already addressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal [2017 (12) TMI 1134 - ITAT MUMBAI] and also by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.[2015 (4) TMI 881 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue.

Disallowance of expenditure on account of contribution to local organisations - assessee had made contributions to various local organisations located in and around the areas where plant offices of the assessee company are situated - Addition made on the ground that the expenditure was not wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in [2014 (10) TMI 994 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Decided against revenue.

Disallowance towards rural development activities by the assessee company - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the issue in view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in [2014 (10) TMI 994 - ITAT MUMBAI]

Nature of expenses - treat the production cost of advertisement film as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee is not in the business of production of feature films rather the films have been used for advertisement. It was pleaded that the air time of T.V. or radio is allowed as expenditure in the year in which such advertisement is telecasted / broadcasted. The ld. AO observed that advertisement film produced could be used again and again and therefore, the assessee derives enduring benefit out of the same. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in [2014 (10) TMI 994 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd [1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance by observing that advertisement film was made only for advertisement and its useful life is very short and such films do not add to the capital structure of the company.

Disallowance towards ESOP - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee had incurred an expenditure on account of employee compensation cost under Employee Stock Options Scheme (ESOS). The entire scheme together with the object and vesting period are addressed in detail by the ld. AO. The discount cost incurred on ESOP scheme was written off by the assessee over the vesting period. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd., which has been subsequently approved by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in 430 ITR 151 [2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].

Deduction u/s.80IA in respect of Rail systems - HELD THAT:- Even in the recent order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., vs. DCIT [2022 (1) TMI 923 - ITAT MUMBAI] this issue has been decided in favour of that assessee. In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) granting deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in respect of Raipur and Hotgi Unit.

Deduction u/s.80IA of the Act towards apportionment of head office expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in [2014 (10) TMI 994 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein this Tribunal had placed reliance on the order passed in assessee’s own case for A.Yrs.1994-95 to 1998-99, which decisions were accepted by the department by not preferring further appeal to High Court on this issue. Since, the issue is already settled by the order of this Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.