2016 (9) TMI 1377 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT affirms CIT(A) decisions on deductions, interest expenses, and additions under Income Tax Act.

DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Versus Astral Poly Technik Ltd. And Astral Poly Technik Ltd. Versus ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on various issues, including allowing deduction under Section 80IC for the Baddi Unit, deleting excess interest ... Deduction u/s.80IC on Baddi Unit - profit attributable to marketing division and brand value to be disallowed or not - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 [2016 (7) TMI 383 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of assessee has given a finding that there was no marketing division and, therefore, there was no transfer of goods from eligible to non-eligible undertaking and in the absence of marketing division being a separate undertaking, no profit could be attributed to the marketing activity. With respect to brand value, the ld.CIT(A) has given finding that the same is owned by the foreign collaborator and there cannot be any profit attributable to brand. He has further given a finding that AO had quantified the gross profit attributable to marketing and brand value and disallowance and that since deduction u/s.80IC is claimed in respect of net profit and, therefore, disallowing gross profit attributable to marketing and brand value is not correct and that further, since the marketing expenses debited to the Profit & Loss Account are more than gross profit computed by the AO, that there cannot be any disallowance of deduction u/s.80IC - Decided in favour of assessee Addition of excess interest expenses debited by assessee in accounts of Gujarat Unit - Held that:- Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, discussed therein that H.P. Unit had sufficient reserves and surplus to meet its liability. In fact, First Appellate Authority has not only confirmed this but has also observed that the H.P. Unit had advanced surplus money to the Gujarat Unit in A.Y. 2008-09. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made on account of excess interest expenses of ₹ 172.42 lacs debited by assessee in the accounts of Gujarat Unit. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s.145A - Held that:- Regarding this provision in respect of A.Y. 1999-2000, being the first year after the insertion of section 145 A of the Act, there is difference of opinion as to whether only closing stock had to be adjusted or whether all the three elements namely, purchases, sale and inventory are to be adjusted to include the element of VAT. In respect of all the subsequent assessment years the ratio laid down is that all the three items namely, purchases, sale and the inventory (as mentioned in 145A of the Act) are to be adjusted to include element of VAT. Effectively, such an exercise is revenue – neutral. So, in this background, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition in question. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) in above legal background needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.- Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Deduction under Section 80IC for the Baddi Unit.2. Addition of excess interest expenses debited by the assessee in the accounts of the Gujarat Unit.3. Addition made under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act.4. Validity of the assessment order dated 30-12-2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act.5. Deletion of addition made under Section 145A for A.Y. 2008-09.6. Order under Section 263 of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction under Section 80IC for the Baddi Unit:The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act for the Baddi Unit. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, following a preceding order. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that there was no separate marketing division and no transfer of goods from the eligible to the non-eligible undertaking. The brand value was owned by a foreign collaborator, and no profit could be attributed to it. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the Revenue did not provide any material to counter the findings.2. Addition of Excess Interest Expenses Debited by the Assessee in the Accounts of the Gujarat Unit:The AO made an addition of Rs. 172.42 lacs as excess interest expenses debited by the assessee in the Gujarat Unit's accounts. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT upheld this decision. The ITAT noted that the H.P. Unit had sufficient reserves and surplus to meet its liability and had advanced surplus money to the Gujarat Unit. The findings of the CIT(A) were confirmed, and the ITAT found no reason to interfere.3. Addition Made Under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act:The AO made an addition of Rs. 6,45,45,525 under Section 145A of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding it to be revenue-neutral. The ITAT upheld this decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. The ITAT noted that such adjustments would even out over time and be revenue-neutral. The CIT(A)'s decision was affirmed, and the ITAT found no reason to interfere.4. Validity of the Assessment Order Dated 30-12-2011 Under Section 143(3) of the Act:The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the validity of the assessment order dated 30-12-2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) did not give any finding on the alternative ground raised by the assessee regarding the incorrect computation of the net capital employed ratio for allocating interest expenditure and foreign exchange loss. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.5. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 145A for A.Y. 2008-09:The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 79,28,008 made under Section 145A for A.Y. 2008-09. The ITAT noted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10. Following the same reasoning, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.6. Order Under Section 263 of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09:The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT's order under Section 263, which set aside the AO's order under Section 143(3) and directed the AO to pass a fresh order. The ITAT noted that the issue on merit had been decided in favor of the assessee in the set-aside proceedings. As a result, the issue raised in Section 263 proceedings was deemed academic and dismissed.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed both the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's appeal and cross-objection. The decisions of the CIT(A) were upheld on all issues, with the ITAT finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s factual and legal findings. The judgment was pronounced in the open Court on 20th September 2016.