2011 (1) TMI 36 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Assessee's Appeal, Remits Disallowance Issue for Fresh Consideration

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Versus. Addl. CIT, Range 1(1)

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The issues were resolved by adhering to the ... Business expenditure - environment monitoring expenses allowed - community development expenses allowed - expenditure on replacement of meters amounting to Rs. 75,32,88,942/- as allowed revenue expenditure - Head office expenses to be allocated before allowing deduction u/s 80IA Deduction u/s 80IA regarding power plant - application of subsection (8) - reasonable profit - the profits of the business of generation of power worked out by the Assessee on the basis of the price that it paid to TPC for purchase of power continues to be the best basis even after the order of MERC and therefore the same has to be accepted - income from sale of units of mutual fund and securities is business income and eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.The issue with regard to disallowance under section 14A has to be made in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. - 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Rule 8D should not be applied and the AO has to adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all relevant facts and circumstances and after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record.AO is correct treating net interest income amounting to Rs. 293,83,36,422/- received on Govt. Securities, Interest on Inter company deposits and bank deposits and other interest as 'income from other sources' instead of the same taxed as “business income' Issues Involved:1. Deduction of environment monitoring and community development expenses.2. Treatment of expenditure on replacement of electricity meters.3. Allocation of head office expenses for computing deduction under Section 80IA.4. Adoption of market price for power generated for deduction under Section 80IA.5. Classification of income from sale of mutual funds and securities.6. Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A.7. Classification of interest income.8. Levy of interest under Section 234B.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of Environment Monitoring and Community Development Expenses:The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim for environment monitoring and community development expenses as business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that similar expenses had been allowed in the assessee's own case in previous years by the Tribunal. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.2. Treatment of Expenditure on Replacement of Electricity Meters:The revenue argued that the expenditure on replacing electricity meters should be treated as capital expenditure. The assessee contended that the replacement was necessary for accurate readings and did not enhance the capital assets. The Tribunal observed that similar claims had been allowed in previous years by the Tribunal, and there was no change in the facts. Respecting the earlier decisions, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order treating the expenditure as revenue expenditure.3. Allocation of Head Office Expenses for Computing Deduction Under Section 80IA:The revenue contested the CIT(A)'s direction not to allocate head office expenses for computing the deduction under Section 80IA for the Goa and Samalkot units. The Tribunal noted that in previous years, the Tribunal had not permitted the allocation of head office expenses for this purpose. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.4. Adoption of Market Price for Power Generated for Deduction Under Section 80IA:The revenue argued that the market price for power generated should be based on the reasonable return as per MERC's orders, rather than the price paid to Tata Power Company (TPC). The Tribunal noted that in previous years, the Tribunal had adopted the price paid to TPC as the market price for computing profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from this method, despite the MERC's tariff orders. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.5. Classification of Income from Sale of Mutual Funds and Securities:The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to treat income from the sale of mutual funds and securities as business income. The Tribunal noted that in previous years, the Tribunal had consistently treated such income as business income in the assessee's case. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.6. Disallowance of Expenses Under Section 14A:The assessee contested the disallowance of expenses incurred in earning income that does not form part of the total income under Section 14A. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., which laid down the principles for disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the High Court's decision.7. Classification of Interest Income:The assessee argued that interest income from government securities, inter-company deposits, and bank deposits should be treated as business income. The Tribunal observed that the interest income was from surplus business funds deployed to earn interest and was rightly treated as income from other sources by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on this issue.8. Levy of Interest Under Section 234B:The assessee's ground regarding the levy of interest under Section 234B was considered consequential. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide consequential relief.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The issues were resolved by adhering to the principle of consistency and following previous Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.