2011 (9) TMI 1093 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decisions, dismissing revenue's appeal. Assessee's appeal partly allowed. Precedents applied.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, dismissing the revenue's appeal and partly allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical ... - Issues Involved:1. Deduction of community development and environment monitoring expenses.2. Classification of expenditure on replacement of meters as capital or revenue expenditure.3. Allocation of head office expenses for computing deduction under section 80IA.4. Determination of market price of power generated for computing deduction under section 80IA.5. Extent of deduction under section 80IA relative to gross total income versus net business income.6. Applicability of section 115JB to the assessee.7. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D.8. Disallowance of bad debts as business loss.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of Community Development and Environment Monitoring Expenses:The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessee's claim of Rs. 3,61,59,800 towards community development and environment monitoring expenses as business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that similar expenses had been allowed in previous years by the Tribunal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.2. Classification of Expenditure on Replacement of Meters:The assessee claimed Rs. 31,20,93,600 as revenue expenditure for replacement of electricity meters. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, following the Tribunal's decisions in previous years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.3. Allocation of Head Office Expenses for Computing Deduction under Section 80IA:The AO allocated head office expenses to the profits of the Goa and Samalkot units for computing deduction under section 80IA. The CIT(A) directed the AO to accept the assessee's allocation method, following Tribunal decisions in earlier years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.4. Determination of Market Price of Power Generated for Computing Deduction under Section 80IA:The AO used the reasonable rate of return fixed by MERC instead of the market price for power purchased from Tata Power Company. The CIT(A) directed the AO to use the market price as provided under section 80IA. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the MERC's reasonable return was not suitable for determining profits from power generation.5. Extent of Deduction under Section 80IA Relative to Gross Total Income versus Net Business Income:The AO restricted the deduction under section 80IA to the net business income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the deduction up to the gross total income, following Tribunal decisions in earlier years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.6. Applicability of Section 115JB to the Assessee:The CIT(A) held that section 115JB was not applicable as the assessee prepared accounts under the Electricity Supply Act, not the Companies Act. The Tribunal upheld this view, following decisions in earlier years, and dismissed the revenue's appeal.7. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D:The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., which laid down principles for disallowance under section 14A.8. Disallowance of Bad Debts as Business Loss:The assessee claimed Rs. 7,29,42,769 as a loan written off. The CIT(A) found no evidence that the loan had become irrecoverable and upheld the AO's disallowance. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the assessee failed to establish the loan as a business loss, and dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, dismissing the revenue's appeal and partly allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The issues were resolved by following precedents and principles established in earlier years and relevant judicial decisions.