Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

DCIT Circle1 (1) , Baroda Versus Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd.

2015 (5) TMI 926 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Disallowance of extra-ordinary items being loss due to cyclone, flood, fire, etc. - assessee could not substantiate that it had incurred expenditure on repairing its assets damaged due to flood - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is seen that the assessee had receivd finaicial assistance amounting to ₹ 16,01,00,000/- for this purpose. This is evident from the Government of Gujarat Resolution NOs.GUV-1105-2724-K1 dated 4.7.2005, 10.10.2005 and 13.10.2005 issued by the Principal S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

regard would ordinarily be necessary. If, however, it was felt that the expenses were over-stated, an independent enquiry could have been made to ascertain the correct expenses. However, this has not been done. Looking to the circumstances and also the fact that the excess subsidy received has been included in the taxable income, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of ₹ 1,48,54,169/-, which is directed to be deleted - Decided against revenue.

Disallow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it cannot be categorized as “enduring”. Hence, inclined to the view that the payment of guarantee commission was a revenue expenditure. Further, the jurisdictional Bench of ITAT had occasion to consider the allowability of guarantee commission paid to a Director of the company in respect of loans taken from the bank. In the case of CIT v. Metalising Equipment Co.Pvt.Ltd [2001 (2) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN High Court] that the payment of commission for guaranteeing repayment of loan was allowable as rev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le. At the time of annual stock verification, some items were found to be in excess or short of the number/quantity recorded in the stock register. Where the quantum was found in excess, the value of stock has been enhanced by such excess and where some items were found short, the value of shortage had been written off. The net effect during the year was shortage of the value of ₹ 3,13,53,470/-. As compared to the turnover such loss is less than 1/20th of 1%. This is quite negligible. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and taxes under the accounting hear ‘Penalties on Statutory Levies’. From the supporting documents filed it is seen that the payments actually pertained to rates and taxes being in the nature of land revenue. Hence the discrepancy stands explained. There was no penal payment involved. Accordingly, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance - Decided in favour of assesse.

Recomputation of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act for the purpose of computing MAT by all .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

scribed in Schedule - XIV could be viewed as minimum rates. From Part B (wherein notes to the accounts have been disclosed) it is seen at item- 5(vii) relating to depreciation, that the company provides depreciation as per the rates notified by CERC, a regulatory commission by virtue of section 76 of Electricity Act, 2003, which are different from the rates prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956. During the year such rates were reduced, which could not however be implemented by the assessee du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e unjustified. The AO is directed to recompute the book profit for MAT by allowing the depreciation claimed - Decided against revenue.

Disallowance of the expenditure being the provision made for employees cost for arrears - Held that:- In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has recorded the fact that the Gujarat Government accepted the 6th Pay Commission in December- 2008. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revenue for AY 2006-07 and the other two appeals are cross-appeals by the Assessee and Revenue have been filed pertaining to Asstt.Year (AY) 2007-08. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee (arising out of separate two orders passed by the ld.CIT(A)-I, Baroda dated 30/03/2010 for AY 2006-07 and dated 18/08/2010 for AY 2007-08), these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Revenue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case and in law, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,39,04,550/- made on account of disallowance of claim of guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat. The disallowance was made by disallowing the claim as revenue expenditure as it is of enduring nature in the assessee s business and hence capital in nature. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 45,24,582/- made on account o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hortage of material in transit, shortage arising on physical verification, etc. The ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the addition was made due to the reason that the assessee had failed to substantiate their claim documentary evidence. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,29,000/- made on account of disallowance of claim under the head penalty expenses. The ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to add to amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief Claimed in Appeal The order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above issue may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2.1 Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 26/12/2008, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made various d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

losses and write offs amounting to ₹ 3,13,53,470/-. Further, the AO made disallowance of ₹ 1,48,94,500/- claimed on expenditure incurred on registration fees paid to ROC and stamping charges for increase in the authorized capital of the company. The AO made disallowance of ₹ 6.29 lacs claim on account of penalty expenses. The AO further made disallowance of ₹ 58,82,406/- on account of preliminary and incidental expenses and of ₹ 57,43,80,598/- on account of interest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition of ₹ 1,48,54,169/- claimed on account of losses due to flood, cyclone, fire, etc. The ld.CIT(A) also deleted the disallowance of ₹ 8,39,04,550/- claimed on account of guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of ₹ 45,24,582/- claimed to have been incurred for cost of raising finance treated as capital expenditure. The ld.CIT(A) also deleted the disallowance of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her deleted the disallowance of ₹ 57,43,80,598/- made by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) further held that the claim of depreciation while computing the book profit reduction by the AO was not justified. The ld.CIT(A) further held that the addition made by the AO while computing the book profit of ₹ 1,54,000/- on account of wealth tax was not justified and the same was deleted. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. First ground related .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nditure. 3.1. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that during the year under consideration there were floods during the period June/July-2005 which caused severe damage to the transmission system of electrical energy. For the restoration and repair work, the company incurred an expenditure of ₹ 1,48,54,169/- at various Circle and Division Offices all over the Gujarat which was purely of revenue nature. 4. We have heard the riv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e production of an essential commodity, i.e. power, immediately took steps to repair its damaged assets and to restore generation of electricity. For this purpose, for full recoupment of the expenditure due to damage, it sought financial help from Government of Gujarat and received a subsidy against loss due to flood amounting to ₹ 16,01,00,000/-. Subsequently, the cost of repair of damaged assets was found to be ₹ 1,48,54,169/- only. Both the receipt of subsidy and the expenditure o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made only on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate that it had incurred expenditure of ₹ 1,48,54,169/- on repairing its assets damaged due to flood. It is seen that the assessee had receivd finaicial assistance amounting to ₹ 16,01,00,000/- for this purpose. This is evident from the Government of Gujarat Resolution NOs.GUV-1105-2724-K1 dated 4.7.2005, 10.10.2005 and 13.10.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary, Energy & Petrochemicals Department. The assessee had in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was felt that the expenses were over-stated, an independent enquiry could have been made to ascertain the correct expenses. However, this has not been done. Looking to the circumstances and also the fact that the excess subsidy received has been included in the taxable income, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of ₹ 1,48,54,169/-, which is directed to be deleted. 4.1. This finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance/addition. He submitted that the AO treated the expenditure as capital expenditure. He submitted that the expenditure is essentially capital in nature, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same. 5.1. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A). He submitted that it is settled position of law that the guarantee commission is of revenue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cised the courts in numerous cases. From an analysis of such cases a few guiding principles/tests can be identified. One of the important tests for categorizing any expenditure as capital in nature is whether the laying out of the impugned expenditure results in the acquisition of creation of any new asset. Where no such asset is created, it would be indicative of an expenditure which was not capital in nature. Another test relates to the principle of enduring benefit . Enduring benefit may be i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the view that the payment of guarantee commission was a revenue expenditure. 5.3. Further, the jurisdictional Bench of ITAT had occasion to consider the allowability of guarantee commission paid to a Director of the company in respect of loans taken from the bank. In the case of Himalaya Machinery Pvt.Ltd. (ITA No.738/Ahd/2009) for AY 2006-07, the Tribunal held, vide order dt.5.6.2009, following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Metalising Equipment Co.Pvt.Ltd., 8 DTR 12, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs.8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted. 6.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The jurisdictional Bench of ITAT has held in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT, 92 TTJ 568, that in determining the nature of expenditure incurred for obtaining loan, it is irrelevant to consider the purpose of loan. The amount spent on stamp duty, lawyer fees, etc. for ob .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

charge (hypothecation of its assets). Hence the ratio of the above mentioned two cases would squarely apply. Accordingly, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance of ₹ 45,24,582/-, which is directed to be deleted. 6.1 The ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.738/Ahd/2009 for AY 2006-07 in the case of Himalaya Mahcinery Pvt.Ltd., dated 5.6.2009 and in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT reported at 92 TTJ 568. 6.2. The ld.CIT- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed that the ld.CIT(A) has verified from the records that there was pilferage, shortage of material in transit, shortage arising on physical verification, etc. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding in para-7.2 of his order, which is reproduced hereunder:- 7.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The amount written off .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

age had been written off. The net effect during the year was shortage of the value of ₹ 3,13,53,470/-. As compared to the turnover such loss is less than 1/20th of 1%. This is quite negligible. The assessee has accounted for both gains as well as losses in respect of consumable stores ad spares in a consistent manner. Accordingly, it is held that the disallowance made was not justified and is directed to be deleted. 9.1. This finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the Revenue by p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that there is not infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A). He submitted that the expenditure was wrongly booked as under the head penalty expenses. This fact was pointed out by the ld.CIT(A), therefore the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. 11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

being in the nature of land revenue. Hence the discrepancy stands explained. There was no penal payment involved. Accordingly, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance of ₹ 6,29,000/-, which is directed to be deleted. 11.1. This finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the ld.CIT-DR by placing any contrary material on record, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of Revenu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Vardhman Fabrics (P) Ltd. reported at 122 Taxman 375. 13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided this issue in paras-12.3 & 12.4 of his order, which are reproduced hereunder:- 12.3 Thus, what is material for the purposes of section 115JB is not the profit & loss account prepared .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and straight line method (SLM). At the same time, the Department of Company Affairs has issued Circular dt. 7.3.2009 which allows depreciation to be claimed at higher rates on the basis of bona fide technological evaluation. It has been clearly stated therein that the rates prescribed in Schedule - XIV could be viewed as minimum rates. From Part B (wherein notes to the accounts have been disclosed) it is seen at item- 5(vii) relating to depreciation, that the company provides depreciation as pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

clearly in Apollo (supra) as well as Malayala Manorama Co Ltd v CIT, 168 Taxman 471 that the power to make enhancement and reduction u/s 115J is limited only to the specific items provided under clauses (a) to (i) and (i) to (viii). The AO has only to satisfy himself that the provisions of the Companies Act have been complied with while preparing the accounts. The provisions of Income-tax Act with regard to depreciation etc., would not be material to the computation. On similar facts, the jurisd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as complied with the provisions contained in Schedule-VI to the Companies Act read with Schedule-XIY and Circular dt. 7.3.2009 of the Department of Company Affairs. Hence the AO's action in reducing the claim of depreciation under item (ii)(a) by ₹ 14,32,02,331/- is held to be unjustified. The AO is directed to recompute the book profit for MAT by allowing the depreciation claimed. 13.1. The ld.CIT(A) has applied the ratio laid down in the judgements of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 for AY 2006-07 is dismissed. 15. Now, we take up the Assessee s appeal in ITA No.2974/Ahd/2010 for AY 2007-08, wherein following grounds have been raised:- 1.0. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of ₹ 61,00,00,000/- being the provision made for employees cost for arrears payable upto 31st March, 2007 without considering the facts that such expenditure was pending the decision of 6th Pay Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 15.1. First ground of assessee s appeal is against confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of ₹ 61,00,00,000/- being the provision made for employees cost for arrears. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the judgement of Hon ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. reported at (2008 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

final decision to pay the same was still awaited. There was not liability fastened upon the assessee to pay the arrears of 6th pay commission. Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the liability to pay arrears of 6th pay commission had actually not been crystallized during the year under consideration, a sum of ₹ 61,00,00,000/- is disallowed and added back to total income being contingent liability. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the finding of the AO by observing th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted Pay Commission of its own, to reframe the recommendations. In other words, without acceptance of the report the liability cannot be said to have accrued or crystallized. Crystallization of employee cost liability is contingent upon approval or otherwise from Gujarat Government. The Gujarat Government accepted the six Pay Commission Report in December-2008. In view thereof, in my humble opinion for AY 07-08 the provision towards employees cost for arrears payable upto 31.3.07 is a contingent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as follows in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 73 (1969) ITR 53: - "The question that concerns us is whether, while working out the net profits, a trader can provide from his gross receipts his liability to pay a certain sum for every additional year of service which he receives from his employees. This, in our view, he can do, if such liability is properly ascertainable and it is possible to arrive at a proper discounted present value. Even if the liability is contingent l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

profits." In Bharat Earth Movers (supra) (decided by the Supreme Court), the question which the Court had to consider was whether the provision for meeting earned-leave-encashment by the employee was an admissible deduction in the hands of the employer. The Court reiterated and applied its previous decision in Metal Box' case (supra) and held as follows: "(I)f a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tain. " 15.3. Further, the High Court held as under:- 6. In this case, the Tribunal had noticed that there was no dispute as regards the terms of employment of the workers and officers. The only question was the exact quantification of the compensation or wage revision. The Tribunal also held that provision for wage revision was based on past experience, interim Pay Commission of government employees, previous Pay Commission's reports of public sector employees, union demands and other .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ized as contingent but was in fact ascertained; the quantification, however, had not happened. 15.4. The Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.(supra) held as under:- 3. Even though learned standing counsel for the Revenue contended that contractual liability arises only on the date of signing the agreement, we are unable to accept this argument in this case. In the normal course, an agreement called settlement as increase in wages takes effect f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e respondent assessee w.e.f. 1st Aug., 1992. The assessee is entitled to claim deduction of such wage increase attributable upto the end of the previous year, no matter exact amount was ascertained and payment made later. In the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is made very clear that what is to be considered is whether the liability is attributable to the previous year or not and it is immaterial if the actual liability was ascertained and settled only in the next year. Even .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T(A) has recorded the fact that the Gujarat Government accepted the 6th Pay Commission in December- 2008. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the judgement of Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.(supra) and in the judgement of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.(supra), the disallowance made by the AO is hereby deleted. Thus, ground of assessee s appeal is allowed. 16. Ground N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.(supra). 17. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Since we have allowed the ground No.1 of assessee s appeal(supra) by following the judgement of Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.(supra) and the judgement of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

law, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 679.95 lacs made on account of disallowance of claim of guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat. The disallowance was made by disallowing the claim as revenue expenditure as it is of enduring nature in the assessee s business and hence capital in nature. 2. On the facts and I the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 16.38 lacs made on account of disallowance of c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version