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 dismisses Revenue appeal, upholds CIT(A) decisions on various grounds.</h1> <h3>DCIT And M/s. Bhushan Steel, Ltd. Versus ACIT And M/s. Bhushan Steel, Ltd.</h3> DCIT And M/s. Bhushan Steel, Ltd. Versus ACIT And M/s. Bhushan Steel, Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of sales tax exemption claimed as capital subsidy.2. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of depreciation on assets not registered in the name of the company.3. Deletion of addition on account of reduction of the claim of deduction under section 80IA for synchronization charges.4. Deletion of addition on account of expenses paid out of undisclosed sources.5. Deletion of addition in book profits on account of provision for FBT.6. Addition of expenditure under Section 14A for earning exempt income.7. Adjustment of expenditure under Section 14A to the Book Profit for computation of MAT liability under Section 115JB.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Disallowance of Sales Tax Exemption Claimed as Capital Subsidy:The assessee's plant located in a notified backward area was entitled to sales tax exemption under the UP Sales Tax Act. The subsidy was treated as capital subsidy and reduced from taxable income. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on earlier ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Special Bench decision in DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., which supported the assessee's position.2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Not Registered in the Name of the Company:The assessee claimed depreciation on assets used in the business but not registered in its name. The CIT(A) upheld the claim, referencing ITAT decisions in the assessee's favor for previous years and Supreme Court rulings in Poddar Cement Ltd. and Mysore Minerals Ltd. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld it.3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Reduction of the Claim of Deduction Under Section 80IA for Synchronization Charges:The AO reduced synchronization charges from the profits of eligible units for computing deduction under Section 80IA. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contention, following ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case for previous years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the liability for synchronization charges crystallized during the relevant year and should be reduced from profits.4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Expenses Paid Out of Undisclosed Sources:The AO added Rs. 8,40,000 based on a statement by an employee admitting to receiving perks in cash. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and the employee's retraction of the statement. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the absence of corroborative evidence and upheld the deletion.5. Deletion of Addition in Book Profits on Account of Provision for FBT:The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO for provision of FBT in book profits. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing earlier ITAT decisions in the assessee's favor and noting the retrospective amendment in Section 115JB.6. Addition of Expenditure Under Section 14A for Earning Exempt Income:The AO disallowed Rs. 89 lakhs under Section 14A, applying Rule 8D, as the assessee had investments generating exempt income. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, referencing ITAT's decision in ACIT vs. Cheminvest Ltd. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the applicability of Rule 8D and the lack of specific challenge to the computation.7. Adjustment of Expenditure Under Section 14A to the Book Profit for Computation of MAT Liability Under Section 115JB:The CIT(A) held that expenditure related to exempt income should be added to book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal disagreed, referencing the Supreme Court's principle in Apollo Tyres Ltd. and ITAT's decision in ACIT vs. Spray Engineering Devices Ltd., which stated that Section 14A disallowance is not covered by the clauses of explanation to Section 115JB. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment of Rs. 89 lakhs to book profits.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on various grounds and providing relief to the assessee on the issue of adjustment to book profits under Section 115JB.
TaxTMI 