2012 (12) TMI 682 - AT - Income Tax

Partial appeal success in diverse disputes over expenses, interest, and gains leads to mixed Tribunal outcome.

Cadbury India Limited Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, Range-5(1) Mumbai.

Cadbury India Limited Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, Range-5(1) Mumbai. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of rural development expenses.2. Disallowance of provision for contractual liability towards excise duty.3. Addition due to sale of milk fat outside books of account.4. Addition of interest paid to the Income Tax Department.5. Inclusion of miscellaneous income in total turnover for section 80HHC.6. Reduction of 90% of interest from profit of business for section 80HHC.7. Computation of capital gain on sale of land and building.8. Disallowance of payments related to VRS.9. Disallowance of repairs to the building.10. Levy of interest under section 234C.11. Disallowance of garden maintenance expenditure.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Rural Development Expenses:The first dispute concerns the disallowance of Rs.1,24,201/- spent on rural development near the assessee's factory. The AO disallowed these expenses due to lack of business nexus, and CIT(A) upheld the disallowance based on previous years' decisions. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, finding the facts identical to the earlier year.2. Disallowance of Provision for Contractual Liability Towards Excise Duty:The second dispute involves the disallowance of Rs.61,44,628/- as a provision for contractual liability towards third-party manufacturers for excise duty. The AO disallowed it following the decision in the earlier year, and CIT(A) confirmed it. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the liability was pending in dispute and not incurred during the year, consistent with the decision in the assessment year 1994-95.3. Addition Due to Sale of Milk Fat Outside Books of Account:The third dispute is the addition of Rs.70,10,096/- for the sale of milk fat outside the books of account. The AO made the addition based on discrepancies noted during a survey, which CIT(A) confirmed. The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding no evidence of unaccounted sales outside the books, aligning with the decision in the assessment year 1998-99.4. Addition of Interest Paid to Income Tax Department:The fourth dispute concerns the addition of Rs.30,26,788/- paid as interest to the Income Tax Department. The AO disallowed the interest payment, and CIT(A) confirmed it. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, referencing the Third Member decision in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd., which supports the non-allowability of such interest as a deduction.5. Inclusion of Miscellaneous Income in Total Turnover for Section 80HHC:The fifth dispute involves the inclusion of miscellaneous income, including sales tax and excise duty refund, in the total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC. The AO included these receipts, and CIT(A) confirmed it. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion except for sales tax and excise duty, which should be excluded based on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine Works.6. Reduction of 90% of Interest from Profit of Business for Section 80HHC:The sixth dispute is about reducing 90% of interest from the profit of the business for section 80HHC. The AO excluded 90% of gross interest, confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the order, directing the AO to reduce 90% of net interest income, following the Supreme Court decision in ACG Associated Capsules Ltd.7. Computation of Capital Gain on Sale of Land and Building:The seventh dispute concerns the computation of capital gain on the sale of land and building. The AO treated the property as a composite unit and computed short-term capital gain under section 50, which CIT(A) confirmed. The Tribunal held that land and building should be bifurcated for capital gain computation, with land treated as a long-term capital gain and building as a short-term capital gain under section 50. The issue was restored to the AO for recomputation.8. Disallowance of Payments Related to VRS:The eighth dispute involves the disallowance of Rs.4,13,540/- related to VRS, including payments to consultants, gifts, and incentives. The AO disallowed the claim, confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal allowed the deduction for gifts paid to employees at the time of retirement and the consultant's fees, considering the latter as business expenditure under section 37.9. Disallowance of Repairs to the Building:The ninth dispute is the disallowance of Rs.18,61,490/- for repairs, including redevelopment, construction of a cycle stand, and renovation. The AO treated the expenditure as capital, confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal allowed the expenditure on redevelopment as revenue but upheld the capital treatment for the cycle stand and substantial renovation of the canteen building.10. Levy of Interest Under Section 234C:The tenth ground regarding the levy of interest under section 234C was not pressed during the hearing and was dismissed as not pressed.11. Disallowance of Garden Maintenance Expenditure:The eleventh ground concerning the disallowance of garden maintenance expenditure was also not pressed during the hearing and was dismissed as not pressed.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with specific issues being upheld or remanded for further consideration based on the Tribunal's detailed analysis and adherence to precedents and legal principles.