TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Decisions on Business Expenses, Deductions, and Taxable Incomes</h1> <h3>Thermax Limited & Jt. CIT, Spl. Range-3, Pune Versus Jt. CIT, Spl. Range-3, Pune, Thermax Limited & Mrs Arnavaz R Aga</h3> Thermax Limited & Jt. CIT, Spl. Range-3, Pune Versus Jt. CIT, Spl. Range-3, Pune, Thermax Limited & Mrs Arnavaz R Aga - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of entertainment expenses under Section 37(2).2. Deduction of proportionate premium on leasehold land.3. Deduction of process know-how fees under Section 35AB.4. Disallowance under Rule 6B of the I.T. Rules, 1962.5. Disallowance of provision for warranty obligations.6. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment.7. Recognition of profits from long-term contracts under AS 7.8. Eligibility of certain incomes for deduction under Section 80-I/80-IA.9. Exclusion of retention money from business income.10. Computation of deduction under Section 80-HHC.11. Deduction of testimonial payment to Mrs. A.R. Aga.12. Taxability of receipts from non-compete covenant and business transfer.13. Computation of deduction under Section 80M.14. Levy of interest under Section 234B.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenses:The assessee argued that only individual entertainment expenses exceeding Rs. 10,000 should be disallowed under Section 37(2). The CIT(A) rejected this, confirming only 15% of the total entertainment expenses related to employees. The Tribunal dismissed the ground, aligning with previous decisions for earlier assessment years.2. Deduction of Proportionate Premium on Leasehold Land:The assessee claimed a deduction for amortized leasehold land premium. The CIT(A) rejected this, following the Special Bench decision in Mukund Limited and previous Tribunal orders. The Tribunal upheld this rejection.3. Deduction of Process Know-How Fees:The assessee claimed the entire process know-how fees as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1), but the CIT(A) allowed only 1/6th under Section 35AB. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration, following the Supreme Court's decision in Swaraj Engines Ltd.4. Disallowance under Rule 6B of the I.T. Rules, 1962:The CIT(A) disallowed Rs. 1,10,959 under Rule 6B, as the assessee failed to prove the business purpose of the gifts. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance.5. Disallowance of Provision for Warranty Obligations:The CIT(A) disallowed Rs. 2,13,34,281 as contingent liability. The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the precedent set in earlier years, deciding in favor of the assessee.6. Disallowance of Provision for Leave Encashment:The CIT(A) disallowed Rs. 23,42,000 for leave encashment, rejecting the assessee's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, following previous Tribunal orders.7. Recognition of Profits from Long-Term Contracts:The CIT(A) partially allowed the assessee's claim for profit equalization under AS 7, but the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the precedent in Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd., allowing the assessee's claim.8. Eligibility of Certain Incomes for Deduction under Section 80-I/80-IA:The CIT(A) disallowed various incomes, including other income, interest, and service charges, from Section 80-I/80-IA benefits. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest and other income but allowed service charges and restored the issue of exchange rate fluctuation to the AO.9. Exclusion of Retention Money from Business Income:The assessee did not press this issue, and the Tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.10. Computation of Deduction under Section 80-HHC:The Tribunal decided against the assessee on reducing losses from trading goods from export profits, following the Supreme Court decision in IPCA Laboratories Ltd. It allowed the exclusion of excise duty and sales tax from total turnover, following the Supreme Court decision in Lakshmi Machine Works. The Tribunal restored other issues, including the exclusion of specific incomes and exchange rate fluctuations, to the AO for reconsideration.11. Deduction of Testimonial Payment to Mrs. A.R. Aga:The CIT(A) disallowed the Rs. 2 crores testimonial payment as business expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, agreeing it was a gratuitous payment not incurred for business purposes.12. Taxability of Receipts from Non-Compete Covenant and Business Transfer:The CIT(A) treated the Rs. 3 crores from the non-compete agreement and Rs. 3 crores from the business transfer as business income or short-term capital gains. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court decision in PNB Finance Ltd., held the receipts as capital receipts not taxable under Section 45, Section 50, or Section 28(iv).13. Computation of Deduction under Section 80M:The CIT(A) attributed 2.5% of gross dividend income as expenses for earning the dividend, reducing the deduction under Section 80M. The Tribunal upheld this estimation.14. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:The Tribunal noted this issue as consequential and did not provide a detailed ruling.Separate Judgments:The Tribunal delivered a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity, addressing all issues raised in the cross-appeals and the assessee's appeal.
TaxTMI 