2011 (4) TMI 1344 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed on trade guarantees, bad debts provision, and interest disallowance under Section 14A

Wartsila India Ltd. Versus The Dy Commr of Income Tax Range 3 (3), Mumbai and vice-versa

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of provision for trade guarantees, bad debts, and deletion of addition on account of ... - Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of provision for trade guarantees.2. Disallowance of bad debts.3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.4. Disallowance of set off of long-term capital loss.5. Deduction of actual expenditure incurred in respect of trade guarantee performance.6. Disallowance of liquidated damages.7. Deletion of addition on account of interest under Section 14A and Rule 8D.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Provision for Trade Guarantees:The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming the Assessing Officer's (AO) disallowance of Rs. 1,41,92,093/- for trade guarantees. The AO noted the provision was inconsistent and unscientific, deeming it a contingent liability. The CIT(A) upheld this but allowed actual expenditure deduction. The Tribunal found the issue covered in favor of the assessee by previous Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in Rotork Controls India P Ltd vs CIT, allowing the assessee's claim.2. Disallowance of Bad Debts:The AO disallowed Rs. 74,01,262/- claimed as bad debts, stating the assessee did not justify the claim. The CIT(A) allowed most of the claim but upheld Rs. 1,32,009/- disallowance, citing non-compliance with Section 36(2). The Tribunal agreed the amount could not be allowed as bad debt but remanded the issue to the AO to verify if it could be allowed as a trading loss under Section 37(1), provided the assessee proves service tax payment during the year.3. Disallowance Under Section 14A:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,18,98,725/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, attributing interest and administrative expenses to exempt income. The CIT(A) upheld only the administrative expenses disallowance. The Tribunal, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg P Ltd, noted Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2005-06 and remanded the issue to the AO for re-computation.4. Disallowance of Set Off of Long-Term Capital Loss:The AO disallowed the set off of Rs. 98,13,766/- brought forward long-term capital loss against short-term capital gains, citing amended Section 74. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal acknowledged the differing facts from the previous year and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of relevant High Court decisions.5. Deduction of Actual Expenditure Incurred in Respect of Trade Guarantee Performance:The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s direction to allow deduction of actual expenditure for trade guarantees. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decisions, directed the AO to verify and withdraw any subsequent year allowances based on actual payments.6. Disallowance of Liquidated Damages:The AO disallowed Rs. 38,71,816/- claimed as liquidated damages due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on past consistent allowances. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision unsustainable due to lack of evidence and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to substantiate the claim with evidence.7. Deletion of Addition on Account of Interest Under Section 14A and Rule 8D:The revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 80,30,403/- interest disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D. The Tribunal, correlating this with the assessee's appeal, remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of the Godrej & Boyce Mfg P Ltd decision, ensuring due opportunity for the assessee.Conclusion:The appeals of both the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication and verification based on provided guidelines and relevant judicial precedents.